Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Vincent Cable: What estimate he has made of the expected cost to the Government of maintaining a military presence in Iraq in financial year (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06.

Geoff Hoon: Before I answer Question 1, may I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans, who is representing the Government at today's commemoration at Monte Cassino?
	Of the £3.8 billion the Chancellor has set aside for operations in Iraq, £850 million was spent in 2002–03 and a further £1.5 billion was drawn down in supplementary estimates in 2003–04. Precise future costs are difficult to forecast.

Vincent Cable: After that vague reply on the future, why can the Secretary of State not be as honest with the House about the cost of the war as Mr. Rumsfeld is being in the United States? Will he confirm that net costs to the taxpayer currently run at about £125 million a month, excluding Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development costs incurred through the occupation?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always honest with the House. The figures that he sets out are roughly consistent with those that I indicated for 2002–03 and 2003–04. He is an economist by trade, but I am sure that he is good at long multiplication.

Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State promise the House that, whatever else may be skimped on and however much it costs, equipment to protect our forces from the searing, debilitating heat in Iraq from June to September will not be skimped on? We ask a great deal of our soldiers, who should not suffer in that heat because we have failed to act.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern and know that he speaks from a good deal of experience. I assure him that all MOD Ministers and, indeed, the chiefs of staff are prepared to make such an undertaking and that conditions for soldiers in the field today are infinitely better than they were when he served his country.

Peter Viggers: What is now our mission in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: Our mission in Iraq is to restore Iraq to the Iraqi people, to ensure a peaceful handover on 30 June and to ensure, as best we can, that we build a democratic, effective society in Iraq that allows it rightfully to rejoin the international community.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the sums are very large. He will understand that many hon. Members feel that we should not be in Iraq in the first place and are concerned by the lack of a clear strategy. Does he think that the budgetary proposals should be subject to a specific vote in this House of Commons?

Geoff Hoon: Such opportunities are, of course, available, if hon. Members choose to use the procedures. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House a great deal longer than me and probably knows the rules better than I do. Such opportunities are available to hon. Members, should they choose to pursue them.

Royal Air Force

Jonathan Djanogly: If he will make a statement on manning levels in the RAF.

Adam Ingram: On 1 April 2004, the trained strength of the regular Royal Air Force was 48,740, which represents a deficit of 830 against the current requirement.

Jonathan Djanogly: The reduction in the RAF's manning requirement, some 4.5 per cent. over the past four years, is the largest out of all the services. Despite that, the manning deficit is, as the Minister says, growing. Does he consider that effective management and, given the proposed base closures and the scrapped Typhoon and joint strike fighter orders, does he have any idea of future RAF required numbers?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman lives in a dream world and is extrapolating his argument from predictions. Recruitment for all three services clearly faces some difficulties and we throw a lot of effort at it. The more people speak up for the armed forces, the greater the chances of success; constant carping and criticism undermine both retention and recruitment.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware of the concern in Norfolk about the proposed closure of RAF Coltishall and the removal from service of the Jaguar? That comes on top of the Eurofighter, which has had its cannons removed on cost grounds, and the joint strike fighter, which is apparently too heavy to land with a full payload. Does he feel that he is letting the RAF down?

Adam Ingram: I know who has let down the RAF in the past and we are recovering from those errors of judgment, which occurred across the three services. Again, the hon. Gentleman bases his arguments on press speculation, and I suggest that he wait for a decision—if a decision is made—and make a judgment call on it. His approach adds to the negativity created by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).

Angus Robertson: The Minister knows that large-scale restructurings are taking place among various trade groups in the Royal Air Force and that the defence airfield review teams—DARTs—have been examining different base structures. I am sure that he agrees that it is important to have a communications strategy to tell people on the bases about impending changes in a robust and informative way. Is he confident that such a communications strategy exists to minimise unnecessary anxieties on bases such as RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss?

Adam Ingram: I would be worried if we were not communicating the matters that we are currently considering. Of course, the end-to-end strategy, which takes into account land and air, has identified significant areas of potential efficiency within uniformed personnel and the civilian support elements, whether directly in support or in industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support such measures to ensure that we extract maximum efficiency so that every pound that has been spent goes to the front line. That is part of what drives our actions. I shall examine existing communications because I appreciate that much effort has gone into ensuring that our people are fully aware of why we are acting, the possible consequences and the benefits that can flow from it.

Gerald Howarth: Since manning depends on the aircraft available, when does the Minister expect the Typhoon and the seriously overweight joint strike fighter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred, to be in full operational service? Is not it the case that, if the proposed savage cuts reported in the press occur, they will reduce the RAF to a level below the critical mass necessary to maintain a credible air superiority capability for the United Kingdom?

Adam Ingram: The answer has not changed from that about which the hon. Gentleman has been told. There is nothing new to change the in-service date. Again, he refers to press speculation and extrapolates from that a doom-laden scenario for the RAF. Let us talk up the RAF for a bit.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on the progress made in delineating tasks between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Geoff Hoon: Work continues on the precise delineation of tasks between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina in anticipation of the withdrawal of the stabilisation force, SFOR. We would expect the EU force in Bosnia to provide the security framework to enable political and economic development to continue. NATO's continuing role will be to focus on defence reform, including advising the Bosnians on NATO accession and some operational tasks, including counter-terrorism and support of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

John Wilkinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the EU is to take over the principal stabilisation role from NATO by the end of the year, as planned, the EU force will have to have sufficient manpower and resources to carry out its job effectively and that there should be no overlap, turf wars or differences of approach but co-ordination and co-operation between the EU and NATO in Bosnia? Will a British officer command the EU force?

Geoff Hoon: Let me deal with the general principle first. The hon. Gentleman is right that there needs to be absolute clarity about the responsibilities of the EU force and any continuing EU activity in the area. That is why, as I said to hon. Members a few moments ago, we are engaged in detailed discussions to prevent any such overlap and confusion of roles. We are working towards that before any decision is made on the future of SFOR, as he acknowledged in his question. That decision has not yet been made.

Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend knows that the EU wishes to be perceived as a major player in the international sphere on maintaining security. Does he believe that that is sufficient reason for dividing security between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Since we are considering a Berlin-plus operation, will any non-EU European NATO allies be involved in it?

Geoff Hoon: In a sense, my hon. Friend answered the first part of his question with his reference to Berlin-plus. Arrangements have been established to allow the EU to take advantage of the military assets available to NATO. That was part of the agreement known as Berlin-plus and it will underpin any EU operation in the Balkans. It is important to recognise that not all EU members are necessarily members of NATO. It is right that we should take advantage of their military capabilities to develop the sort of operation for which Europe in particular should be responsible in its sphere of influence. The Balkans is clearly within that. It is right and proper that, if it is decided to end SFOR, the EU should take over.

Infantry (Urgent Deployments)

Tim Loughton: What assessment he has made of the (a) adequacy and (b) availability of British infantry to respond to additional urgent deployments.

Geoff Hoon: A number of British infantry units are routinely held in reserve at very high readiness to deploy. This ensures that the Army always has prepared troops available to respond to additional urgent deployments. The adequacy of this system was perfectly illustrated by our extremely swift response to the recent difficulties in Kosovo. The spearhead land element, in this case the 1st Battalion the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, deployed to theatre in less than 24 hours, undertaking its first patrol the very next day.

Tim Loughton: That of course is nothing new, but given the massive overstretch facing the infantry battalions of the British Army as a result of the concurrent operations overseas, and the fact that they now face the prospect of non-combat activities in the UK to deal with fuel tax protesters and possibly another firemen's strike, at what point does the Secretary of State anticipate that infantry availability will run out?

Geoff Hoon: The absolute determination of the Opposition to talk down the skills and successes of our armed forces is remarkable. I have just given the hon. Gentleman an excellent illustration of just how ready and available our armed forces are. Within days, they are able to go out on patrol and conduct extremely effective operations in Kosovo, but what happens? The hon. Gentleman talks them down. That is becoming typical of the Opposition as a whole.

Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give the House a vote on the possible deployment of more troops to Iraq? If not, will he give us an assurance that any such deployment will be in the areas where our troops are now, and not in the positions that the Americans are asking us for?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been in the House for much longer than I have and knows full well that decisions on whether votes are taken are a matter for the House. We keep under constant review the question of the number of troops required in Iraq. We have from time to time increased that number in response to specific requests from commanding officers on the ground. Nothing has changed about the situation. I am sure that she and other hon. Members recognise that, if there were an urgent request for extra troops, it would be the responsibility of the Government to satisfy that request, before the possibility of any House of Commons vote.

Bob Russell: In how many countries are British troops currently deployed?

Geoff Hoon: Quite a number.

Keith Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for that accurate answer. Members on both sides of the House recognise the fact that infantry battalions are the workhorses of the British Army. They are vital in both military operations and peacekeeping. There are few other armies in which the infantry can move as easily from one aspect of operations to another as our troops can. However, the Select Committee, the chiefs of staff and the former Chief of the Defence Staff have all indicated time and again that the Army is suffering from serious overstretch, particularly in the infantry. The decision to put the 1st Battalion the Black Watch on stand-by for reinforcing Iraq is an illustration of just how serious that situation is. That regiment has just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and is now the UK land forces training battalion at Warminster. If the MOD now has to deploy training units, what infantry will be left for further urgent deployments?

Geoff Hoon: Here we go again. The Opposition are absolutely determined to talk down every aspect of the considerable success of the armed forces. Whenever I give illustrations—as I do repeatedly from the Dispatch Box—of just how successful we are, not only in the armed forces but in the management in the Ministry of Defence, all we get from the other side is this determined effort to run down our armed forces.

Brian Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we ask our armed forces to undertake duties on behalf of our country, we should reward, defend and protect them? If it comes to a point at which they are overstretched, can he estimate how much it would cost to equip and man the extra five infantry regiments that the Opposition are talking about, and where would the money come from?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Opposition appear determined to cut the size of the defence budget. In those circumstances, I am sure that the people of this country would draw the appropriate conclusions about whether they could possibly trust this country's defence to the Opposition.

Iraq

Charles Hendry: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: The whole House will join me in condemning the recent violence and especially the bombing in Baghdad this morning that resulted in the death of Iraq governing council member Izz al-Din Salim. The undemocratic actions of a minority, often perpetrated against fellow Iraqis, will not deter them or the coalition from continuing down the path that we have set out to achieve a democratic transition in Iraq.
	Away from the headlines, we are continuing to make steady progress in Iraq. Some 80,000 Iraqi police are helping to provide security to their people. Almost 20,000 reconstruction projects have been completed. Following years of neglect, Iraq's infrastructure is being modernised, with bridges, pylons, railways and water pipelines being constructed right across the country. But we recognise that improving the security situation is crucial to the continuing success of reconstruction. This continues to cause concern, with more than 100 engagements between insurgents and coalition forces just the weekend before last.
	On 1 July, authority will pass to an Iraqi interim Government, who will prepare the ground for full elections to a transitional assembly some time around the turn of the year. Iraq will then have, for the first time in many years, a representative, democratic body, chosen by all the people, working on behalf of the entire country. In preparation for this, many Iraqi Ministries have already passed to Iraqi control.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's detailed reply, but does he understand that most people now regard the Government's approach to Iraq as increasingly incompetent? The Government seem to be acting on a day-to-day basis, rather than working to any coherent strategy. Ministers seem not to understand what is going on; they seem more concerned about how they explain that the buck does not stop with them. Does he understand the serious effect that that must be having on the morale of our troops in Iraq, who continue to do the most courageous and professional work despite the lack of political backing from their masters?

Geoff Hoon: The strategy has been clearly set out on many occasions. I was able to repeat only the highlights. No doubt in the forthcoming debate, we will have the opportunity to identify precisely what the Opposition are complaining about. Aside from the bluster that we sadly have heard repeatedly from the hon. Gentleman, and consistently from Opposition Front Benchers, I have not a single idea as to what the Opposition say about Iraq.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), when the House consented last year to committing British troops to war in Iraq, it did so on the basis of that country possessing weapons of mass destruction and progress being made in the wider peace process in the middle east. Progress on both fronts has been difficult to come by. Does he accept that, if a more substantial commitment of British forces is to be made, or if those troops who are already there are to be used differently, it is essential that the House has a say in that first?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that I correct the hon. Gentleman. As he will recall, if he checks the record, we committed forces to Iraq to deal with the failure of Saddam Hussein's regime to co-operate fully with international resolutions, particularly those set out by the United Nations. Certainly, they concern weapons of mass destruction, and efforts are continuing to identify the nature and location of those weapons. However, the hon. Gentleman must understand that we have to deal with attacks on coalition forces, and, as we have seen so tragically this morning, attacks on individual Iraqis, who are all trying to rebuild that country.
	The simple question for the Liberal Democrats is, what action would they take now? It is all very well trying to rewrite history, as the hon. Gentleman has done, but what would they do with the situation that British forces now face?

Harry Cohen: May I put to the Secretary of State a point that I have put to him before? Mass unemployment among Iraqis gives a real kick to the lack of security in Iraq and the American policy of privatisation and favoured contractors does not provide jobs for Iraqis. Will he, on behalf of the UK Government, put distance between the UK and US policies, so that we argue for jobs for Iraqis?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend needs to recognise that the largest single employer in Iraq is the coalition provisional authority, which is the authority responsible for the distribution of large amounts of international aid, the great majority of which comes from the United States. The CPA employs large numbers of Iraqis on reconstruction projects of the kind that I have just set out.

Gordon Prentice: Saddam Hussein is going to be returned to the Iraqi interim government in six weeks. Who will guard him: Iraqis or coalition personnel?

Geoff Hoon: Some of those details are still to be resolved between the Iraqis and coalition forces, but I emphasise that there will be a full transfer of authority on 30 June. It is for the Iraqis to determine the way ahead on these matters and the British Government in particular will co-operate fully in that respect.

Edward Garnier: Can the Secretary of State assure me that, in the current security situation in Iraq and in any anticipated developments over the next few months, British deployments will still be for six months only, and not for nine months?

Geoff Hoon: Decisions of that kind are taken in response to circumstances on the ground, but I have not seen any need to change the current length of deployments.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State will know that some people argue that the British Government should distance themselves from the Bush Administration in their policy on Iraq. Does he believe that to do so, far from assisting the establishment of security in Iraq, would further undermine the likelihood of security and stability for the people of Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I agree entirely. We are working together as a coalition and all those who make complaints must answer the question of what they would do. Anyone who seriously suggests early withdrawal from Iraq must recognise that they would be responsible for any conflict that followed.

Nicholas Soames: My right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to associate themselves with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about the dreadful bombing in Iraq this morning.
	Given that it is hard to exaggerate how disastrous the last two weeks have been for the Government, and now that their policy on post-conflict Iraq has been so brutally exposed by the absence of any clear political strategy, will the Secretary of State take this moment to set out to the House and the wider country the Government's strategic objectives for the next 45 days until the transfer of power and for the subsequent period until elections?

Geoff Hoon: I answered that question right at the start of Question Time, but I shall take the opportunity to repeat myself, as I shall again in the debate to follow. It is important that we are able on 30 June to hand over to the Iraqi people not only sovereignty, but authority—the ability to take real decisions on the future of their own country. That will lead towards a situation by the end of this year or early next year in which there can be elections and a Government elected for all the people of Iraq. As we do that, we need to become less and less responsible for security as more and more Iraqis assume that responsibility for themselves. We will, however, be there to assist the Iraqis in delivering that security for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Nicholas Soames: The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have accepted almost limitless liability for what happens in Iraq in exchange for very little control over events. At one moment the Prime Minister claims that he is in discussion with the Americans over further troop deployments, but within hours his spokesman denies it. The next moment we are told that we are staying to see this through, but we are subsequently told that the Prime Minister and President Bush are speeding up plans to withdraw troops from Iraq and hand over security to the Iraqis. What kind of message does that send to our troops on the ground and to the Iraqis themselves? Are the Iraqis to co-operate with the coalition, or should they simply sit out our presence and hope for the best when we leave? Does the Secretary of State agree that the absence of a clear political strategy has been the single most serious failing of the occupation? Let us not make it the main feature of the post-occupation period, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say that in future I expect shorter supplementaries.

Geoff Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was clearly warming up for his speech later.
	The importance of this matter should not be underestimated. I cannot understand from the Opposition what they would do differently. It is all very well to stand there blustering about the absence of a clear political strategy, but one has been set out time and again.
	Clearly, we have responsibilities to the Iraqi people to ensure that there is the possibility of reconstruction and improvement in the face of determined terrorist attacks, not only against coalition forces but against the Iraqis themselves, as the events of this morning so vividly and tragically demonstrated. It is important that the Opposition think through their opposition; at the moment, they are simply opposing, with nothing whatsoever constructive to say.

Adam Price: Whether UK armed forces personnel have been based at the Abu Ghraib detention facility since 1 May 2003.

Geoff Hoon: Three members of the United Kingdom armed forces were based at the Abu Ghraib detention facility between January and April 2004.

Adam Price: The US Administration have admitted the use of so-called stress positions in the interrogation of Iraqi detainees, a practice that they say has now stopped. Did the service personnel mentioned by the Secretary of State report the use of those techniques? If so, to whom did they report and what action was taken? Is there any evidence that stress postures were used by British service personnel in the interrogation of Iraqis at any other detention centre?

Geoff Hoon: This matter has already been reported to the House but I repeat the information so that the hon. Gentleman is not in any doubt. The investigation by the US authorities was into events that took place between October and December 2003. As I have told the House already, the three British service personnel were at Abu Ghraib for a limited period after the events under investigation and did not, therefore, witness any of the events that have been the subject of so much speculation in the press—to which, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, he is clearly trying to add. Moreover, the American investigation was already under way by the time that those three service personnel arrived at the facilities. Given that, it would be remarkable if they had seen any of those so-called techniques in use. They had no complaints and they did not report the use of such techniques to the American authorities because they did not witness their use. Nor did they report them to any UK authorities.

Eric Joyce: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all allegations of mistreatment by British troops of Iraqi citizens are thoroughly investigated?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that assurance. The moment that serious and substantial allegations are made, proper investigations have got under way. Those investigations continue. Should they lead to a situation in which it is judged by an independent prosecuting authority that charges should be preferred, that would obviously follow.

Nicholas Winterton: After 30 June, when we will rightly pass authority for so much to the Iraqi council, will the Abu Ghraib detention centre and other detention centres be staffed by Iraqis?

Geoff Hoon: I have indicated to the House that those are matters that are still under discussion, but in principle the answer is yes. Authority will pass to the Iraqis to be increasingly responsible for their own affairs and it is obviously important that that is seen to be the case on the ground. However, I emphasise to the House that matters are still subject to negotiation.

Nick Palmer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is essential that we are seen to be behaving correctly in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. In his discussions with our coalition partners, will he ask them to ensure that we are aware of any future allegations of systematic misconduct that may be laid against any member of the coalition?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly it is important that there is a full and frank exchange of information when such issues arise and I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Anthony Steen: What arrangements have been made for counselling troops in units that have suffered casualties in Iraq.

Adam Ingram: Military personnel deployed to Iraq receive pre-deployment and post-deployment briefing on mental health issues. Trained mental health professionals have also been deployed and are available to military personnel in theatre. However, psychiatric debriefing is not routinely offered to individuals or units who have been exposed to combat.

Anthony Steen: Surely when young servicemen lose colleagues in the theatre of war, they should not so much be offered as receive, from non-military personnel, guidance, help and support. They should be able to work through their anger and distress and that should not be recorded as a weakness by military personnel.

Adam Ingram: There are extensive arrangements in place to deal with all those issues. Procedures were put in place after the last Gulf war that were found to have no real clinical advantage and as a result they were not continued. It is about ensuring that, if a request for help is made, it is made available. It is also about monitoring by senior officers and others in the chain of command of what is happening to those under their command. The way in which we handle such situations is very sensitive and they are taken seriously, but no significant complaints—or any complaints—have been made to date that would support the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised that question.

David Chaytor: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the recording of casualties in Iraq? Does he feel that there is a moral, if not necessarily strictly legal, obligation on the occupying forces to record civilian deaths as well as military deaths; and does he feel that the failure to record Iraqi civilian deaths has an adverse impact on Iraqi people's perception of the occupying forces?

Adam Ingram: The question was about the counselling of our troops. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that their being asked to do certain things, then doing them, causes them additional stress.
	On the counting of civilian deaths, Iraq is a most difficult environment in which to operate. Where face-to-face conflict has taken place, there may be no indication that a civilian casualty or death has occurred, but a body is then removed from the scene and buried almost immediately. Some people are saying that we should take those bodies out of the ground and examine them for medical and other evidence. That is a completely nonsensical approach.
	This is a very difficult situation and we do our best to ensure that proper counting takes place. Indeed, we are currently trawling all our records to ensure that we have not missed any matters that may have been reported. We are trying very seriously to deal with this, but I hope that my hon. Friend recognises just how difficult the environment is.

Paul Keetch: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about this morning's appalling outrage in Iraq.
	The Minister knows that in addition to the casualties in Iraq from the initial war-fighting phase and the ongoing peacekeeping support operation, several members of the British forces have tragically been killed in accidents. What facilities for counselling are available to their families? Given that our forces are effectively on duty in Iraq for 24 hours a day, does he agree that the partners of any British troops killed in Iraq should be entitled to a full war pension?

Adam Ingram: We have identified some shortfalls in the way in which the counselling of families is approached. That is why the point-of-contact approach of those who report injuries or fatalities to families has been looked at again to see whether there is a more appropriate way of dealing with such situations and to ensure that all personnel who have to carry out an undoubtedly very difficult task are appropriately trained and understand the sensitivity of the issue. It is a learning process, and we have taken on board some valuable lessons in recent months and years. That process can never rest, because we are likely in future to turn up new problems that we must revisit. We have to try to get it right at all times and to understand the sensitivities involved.
	As regards pensions, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Harry Barnes: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the reports by (a) the International Committee of the Red Cross and (b) Amnesty International on the role of British troops in operating prisons in southern Iraq.

Peter Luff: If he will make it his policy to ensure that all reports received from Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the behaviour of British forces are drawn immediately to the attention of Ministers.

Geoff Hoon: The Ministry of Defence receives millions of individual items of correspondence each year. Clearly, it would be impractical for Ministers to see it all, and we must therefore rely on officials' judgment to select those items that require ministerial attention. Some correspondence and reports from organisations such as those mentioned in both questions will fall into this category; others can be dealt with by officials. However, I would normally expect Ministers to see the kinds of reports that were mentioned.
	I have seen two reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross that deal with the role of British troops in operating detention facilities in southern Iraq. One raises two serious issues affecting UK armed forces that had been dealt with well before the report was received; the other is a more recent working paper.
	I am not aware of any Amnesty International reports that deal specifically with the way in which we operate our detention facilities, but it has reported allegations of abuse in UK custody that have been investigated and replied to. Two recent reports from Amnesty make serious allegations about the conduct of UK personnel more generally, covering the period since British troops went into Iraq. Those are being investigated and will be dealt with in the same way.

Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State's reply is somewhat different from the one given by the Minister of State during the debate on Thursday, which, as regards Amnesty International, was merely centred in a one-page letter sent about seven months ago about one incident. Should not reports from Amnesty International be seriously considered by the House? Traditionally, Amnesty International has been held in the highest regard by the labour movement, so what it has to say should be taken on board and examined.

Geoff Hoon: I emphasise that we have received a number of reports, letters and a dossier from Amnesty International—some from the UK section and at least one letter from the Italian section. Each was replied to, once appropriate investigations were completed; for example, the most recent letter we received from Amnesty prompted us to conduct yet a further investigation of all our files relating to Iraq to establish whether Amnesty had raised any new matters in its correspondence. One of the problems that we have faced with that particular organisation is that it has recycled many previous cases in new items of correspondence. Nevertheless, we treat each of those matters very seriously and give each the appropriate investigation.

Peter Luff: The Secretary of State's attitude to this question today is rather different from that of his Minister of State last Thursday. In the words of the popular song, "Sorry may be the hardest word", but would not the Minister have been well advised to use that word last Thursday rather than seeking to twist the word "report" away from any recognisable dictionary definition of it? Would not the Secretary of State, too, be well advised to say sorry to our troops in Iraq for his failure to put proper procedures in place to ensure that he and his Minister of State were fully aware of accusations, ill founded or well founded, made against those troops by reputable international organisations?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman understood more about the way Departments operate he would thoroughly understand that Ministers have investigated those matters, in detail and at length, whenever allegations have been made at an appropriate stage.

Jeremy Corbyn: Could the Secretary of State help me? I am very, very confused as to what happens to reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The reports are obviously serious and important and come from an international organisation of enormous repute, so can he tell us what has happened to those officials who apparently decided either that Sir Jeremy Greenstock did not need to see the reports or that they were to be sent to joint staff headquarters, the Foreign Office basement, or wherever? What procedures have been put in place to ensure that in future Ministers—Ministers—see such reports when they are produced?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend asks a fair question about the situation. We ask officials to exercise their judgment. When officials in the Ministry of Defence saw the report they judged, in the light of the two serious allegations concerning UK soldiers, that those matters were well in hand; indeed, investigations had begun about five months before. Nevertheless, as I made clear in the answer that I have just given the House, it is important that Ministers see such reports and appropriate action has been taken to ensure that that happens in the future.

Julian Lewis: It is surely unacceptable for the Secretary of State to try to use his officials as a bombproof shelter for him and his fellow Ministers. Is it not a fact that anybody with any appreciation of the situation in Iraq must know that the worst thing for coalition aims is that abuses of this sort rally the population behind the insurgents? It should have been blindingly obvious that those reports should have been at the top of the Secretary of State's agenda; and his failure, and that of his colleagues, to treat them with due gravity is partly responsible for the fact that, having won a military campaign, we are now losing the political settlement afterwards.

Geoff Hoon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discuss with those of his Front-Bench colleagues who have some experience of government what happens when officials assess reports. In this case, I have taken appropriate responsibility. I am not—as the hon. Gentleman is—seeking to blame officials. Officials looked at the report and made their judgment. I accept that they must exercise their judgment and that Ministers are responsible for their judgment. That is what happened in this case, and no matter the amount of effort by the Opposition to turn this into some sort of ministerial responsibility as far as the actual decision is concerned, it simply will not wash. The hon. Gentleman should talk to those who have been in government. We can all recall occasions on which Conservative Members have had to come to the House and apologise for their failures in government, so the hon. Gentleman really ought to know better.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the work of the Red Cross and Amnesty International in highlighting abuses across the world is held in very high regard on both sides of the House and that there is an urgent need to investigate these allegations? However, does he also agree that they remain allegations and that, until they are proven otherwise, it is of great disservice to the troops who are still serving in Iraq and to their families back home to pretend otherwise?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for that note of common sense in this debate, a note of common sense that the Opposition have sadly been incapable of demonstrating on this issue, as they are determined to score very poor political points. It is important that the people against whom allegations are made be given the opportunity of responding to those allegations and that thorough investigations be conducted. That is precisely what the Government set out.

Persian Gulf (Deployments)

Patrick Mercer: How many British armed forces personnel are deployed to the Gulf region.

Adam Ingram: There are some 10,000 British armed forces personnel deployed to the Gulf region.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but may I refer him to the reply that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)? Despite what the Government say, a number of units have received unofficial warning orders to go to the Gulf as reinforcements. One of those units is that fine regiment, the Black Watch, which neither I nor any of my colleagues would dream of talking down. The fact remains that colleagues and friends of mine in that regiment tell me that, because of Government indecision, they are having to train almost in secret for these operations and they are making very unfavourable comparisons with precisely the same level of Government dithering that went on before the war started last year. Will the Minister now come clean and give our soldiers the warning orders that they require so that they can be launched properly prepared and properly trained into dangerous circumstances?

Adam Ingram: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, given his experience of the Army—if certainly not of government. If he is alleging that we do not properly train our service personnel and that we put untrained personnel in harm's way, he has forgotten everything that he knew when he was in the armed forces. I do not know whom he has spoken to who says that that is now our approach. We will always train our personnel to the best of our ability and their abilities. Once any decision is taken to deploy our troops, the best and most available troops will be ready and trained to take on whatever tasks are available. We saw that to great effect in the recent deployment to Kosovo.

David Taylor: The House would agree that the breathtaking incompetence verging on treachery that was displayed by certain sacked newspaper editors has imperilled large numbers of British troops not only in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment but elsewhere and has, therefore, made greater deployments to southern Iraq more likely. Specifically, will the Minister comment on the suggestions that, as Spanish troops are withdrawn, the sphere of responsibility of British forces will be widened to include Najaf province and Najaf city? What would the implications of that be?

Adam Ingram: We have made it clear all along that an issue has to be dealt with because of the withdrawal of Spanish forces. That area is now covered by US forces, and we have said that how we deal with the issue in the longer term must be the subject of discussions within the coalition. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the reasons for that. If and when we announce any change to our posture, the House will be duly notified, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said.

Iraq

Andrew Robathan: What (a) special and (b) specific training has been given to non-Royal Military Police soldiers who are being employed as guards in detention camps in Iraq.

Adam Ingram: Specialist handling of detainees by non-Royal Military Police soldiers is provided by members of the Adjutant-General's Corps (Military Provost Staff)—the AGC (MPS)—who receive training relevant to their role running the military corrective training centre in Colchester. The expertise of the AGC (MPS) is in the field of custodial care.
	The United Kingdom is bound by military law to include the law of armed conflict in military training programmes, which includes the handling and treatment of prisoners of war. All personnel are trained to observe the values and standards expected of the British Army, which includes the concepts of decency and respect for others. During pre-deployment training all units are briefed on procedures for dealing with prisoners of war and, since October 2003, each combat unit is mandated to have eight to 10 senior non-commissioned officers trained in the handling of prisoners of war.

Andrew Robathan: Up to a point, that is a good answer, but can I probe a little further? As I understand it, a large number of people employed as prison guards in the detention camps, who are guarding not prisoners of war but civilian detainees, are not from the Adjutant-General's Corps. For how long is the ordinary infantry soldier, who did not join to be a prison guard, trained? How many ordinary infantry soldiers are acting as prison guards? For how long are they expected to act as prison guards?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks some impossible questions—I mean, how long is a piece of string? On the basis of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the new provisions post-30 June, we will, of course, alter some of the characteristics on which his questions are based.
	On the extent of the training, the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that the training process runs right through from phase 1 to when people may be required to undertake that custodial role. They are made aware of the culture into which they are going and the nature of the approach that they have to adopt towards anyone who is in their custody, which is to accord them the highest respect, both in human rights terms and in other ways.
	Our detention centre has an extensive programme that takes account of all that. It is why the ICRC's second report, which has been mentioned, said after that inspection that the conditions are fairly good. We cannot go further than that because we do not discuss the detail of ICRC reports, but I am confident that we are putting in a lot of effort. That is why we have put an additional resource in the hands of combat units that may arrest people by giving each combat unit senior non-commissioned officers who have specialist knowledge and skills.

Civil Service Relocation

Hugh Bayley: What (a) civil service and (b) military responsibilities he plans to relocate from London and the south-east to the northern regions of England.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence continually examines ways of improving military capability and value for money for the taxpayer, including the size and location of our estate. We are now undertaking further examination of where estate rationalisation may be possible, and we will, of course, take account of the Lyons Review.

Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the important role performed by the Defence Vetting Agency? Does he recall how efficiently the agency created its new headquarters at Imphal barracks in York and the assistance it got from the York Inward Investment Board, or york-england.com as it now calls itself? Will the MOD continue to work with the York Inward Investment Board on the possibility of bringing more jobs to Yorkshire?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is right. The Defence Vetting Agency is a good example of the transfer of staff to the regions, in this case York. He refers to york-england.com, which is very active in ensuring that there is a collective view on how the opportunities that Yorkshire and the northern region for which it has responsibility can best be served. There was a meeting between MOD personnel and york-england.com at a seminar on 5 May, and relocation opportunities were discussed in the light of the Lyons report. Those ongoing contacts will be maintained.

Anne McIntosh: To assist the Minister with that task, should he not be aware of the number of military personnel and civilian personnel at the four existing defence establishments in the Vale of York? Will he therefore reconsider his reply to me and give me those figures at the first available opportunity?

Adam Ingram: I do not have the figures to hand. There is a significant military presence, with a good number of military bases, within York and the immediate surrounding area. I think there are about 14,000 military personnel in and around the York area. I shall write to the hon. Lady with the precise figures.

Gibraltar

Lindsay Hoyle: What role the armed forces will play in the 300th anniversary celebrations in Gibraltar.

Geoff Hoon: As I was able to set out on my recent visit to Gibraltar, the armed forces are playing a full part in commemorating Gibraltar's tercentenary this year. Bands of the Royal Marines, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Air Force, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and other military units from the United Kingdom, Royal Navy ships and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are taking part in a total of more than 20 events throughout the year.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to Gibraltar and ensure that it remains an overseas territory?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend campaigns tirelessly on behalf of the people of Gibraltar and I commend him for his efforts. I am delighted, not least in this tercentenary year, to commit myself and the Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the Government, to continuing good relations with the people of Gibraltar.

Wind Farms

Ian Liddell-Grainger: What his policy is on the positioning of wind farms near military ranges.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence fully supports Government policy and targets for renewable energy. We do not oppose wind farm developments unless the safety of MOD personnel or the public, UK defence systems or our operational capability appear to be adversely affected. That applies to both onshore and offshore developments.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Is the Minister aware that there is a helicopter range just off the coast of Somerset, and that West Somerset district council is about to receive an application for 12 wind turbines, 300 ft high and 128 ft across, just down the coast from the range? Has the Minister not thought what damage could be done, first to the helicopters and secondly to the wind farm, should things go wrong?

Adam Ingram: I have. As I made clear in my answer, we have to ensure that there is compatibility between these twin objectives. I am advised that we have received applications for some 15 wind farm developments in Somerset; all the 11 objections raised were connected with radar interference, and none related to interference with range activities. It is not only the Ministry of Defence that is concerned about radar interference; civilian operations can also be affected by wind farms. We have to weigh our clear objective on renewable energy against the way in which wind farms can affect military or civilian overflights.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: In that case, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be helpful if the Government were involved in the research on the effect on radar of wind farms at sea? It is clear that sufficient work has not yet gone into ensuring that we are well aware of the impacts of those structures, both on shipping and on radar installations.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and I bow to her greater immediate knowledge. She may have seen some research that I have not seen. All of us in the Government must make sure that we have a guaranteed approach that takes into account all the points of scientific and practical interest which must be resolved. I am sure that those who have direct responsibility for carrying out the risk research will hear what my hon. Friend says, and I know that she will continue to pursue Government action on the matter.

Edward Leigh: The Government have just announced a major increase in the deployment at RAF Scampton. Star Energy has made an application to site half a dozen wind turbines, each as tall as Lincoln cathedral, within half a dozen miles of that major RAF base. Will the Minister explain his strategy? Will his officials take an interest in the matter? Is there a minimum distance requirement connected with radar or operational safety with which he can acquaint the House? This is obviously a matter of the utmost importance.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is a matter of the utmost importance that when we are relocating activity, in this case in the RAF, we take account of the region into which it is being moved. New applications for wind farms are covered by the response that I gave to the previous questions: we need to make sure that there is compatibility between the twin, or in some cases multiple, objectives that the Government are trying to deliver. We therefore take an interest in these matters. A decision has been made about RAF Scampton and is in the process of being finalised, and any change to the environment is something in which we would take a close interest.

NATO

John MacDougall: If he will make a statement on the issues that will be discussed at the Istanbul NATO summit in June.

Geoff Hoon: The summit at Istanbul will address NATO's current operations. It will also offer the opportunity to strengthen NATO's partnerships with other countries and continue the drive to transform the alliance and its capabilities. In addition to the Heads of State and Government meeting, Defence Ministers will meet to review progress and direct the further reform of NATO.

John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the summit is taking place at a vital time for both NATO and the wider world—a time when NATO and UK forces are involved in Afghanistan and the Balkans? Will he comment on NATO's role and value in the international environment?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question and making important points about the future commitment of NATO. It is vital that we sustain and support its existing responsibilities, while recognising that NATO itself must reform to deal with the new types of threat that we face around the world. I am pleased that the UK has been leading the way in that process. Istanbul is a major way stage in that reform.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[11th Allotted Day]

Iraq

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the Middle East and the impact on public opinion in Iraq of the reports of mistreatment of Iraqi citizens and detainees; believes that progress in Iraq is only possible if the role of the United Nations is expanded and enhanced and the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on 30th June is real and visible; recalls that on 18th March 2003 when this House endorsed military action against Saddam Hussein it did so on an understanding that progress on the road map for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be a priority for Her Majesty's Government; expresses its disappointment that recent events have made the achievement of a negotiated two state solution more difficult and less likely; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British armed forces serving in Iraq in difficult and dangerous circumstances; calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to commit any further troops unless requested by United Kingdom commanders in Iraq for the purposes of securing the safety of British forces and the fulfilling of Britain's legal obligations under international law towards the inhabitants of Iraq; and further declares that any such troops should remain under United Kingdom operational command and within the area currently under United Kingdom control.
	It is worth recalling that we went to war against Iraq on a threat and a promise. The threat was that of weapons of mass destruction, and the promise that of progress in the middle east peace process. But neither threat nor promise has been fulfilled. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and none appears likely to be found now. The Iraq survey group has disappeared from view and its head has resigned. The road map has been rolled up. Unilateral action by Mr. Sharon has been approved and a negotiated settlement in the middle east seems further away than ever.
	There is more. The coalition of which the United Kingdom is a member is shamed and embarrassed by the treatment of detainees while in the custody of the United States, and we may yet suffer domestic shame and embarrassment when current inquiries are completed. Here in the United Kingdom, there is no acceptable explanation of why Ministers did not see communications from the Red Cross and Amnesty International. The handover date of 30 June now depends on the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations—the same United Nations that was sidestepped by the coalition in spring 2003. There is some irony there, which will, no doubt, not be lost in Manhattan.
	Violence in Iraq is on the increase, as British troops found at the weekend when they had to bayonet their way to safety. The tragic death this morning of the head of the Iraq governing council is yet another demonstrable success for terrorism. In the minds of many Iraqis, the army of liberation is delivering much less than it promised. At Falluja, the United States has had to acknowledge the failure of the doctrine of decisive force. Thousands of Iraqis have died since March 2003, but we do not even afford them the dignity of keeping an accurate estimate of their numbers.
	It is indeed a brave new world, and it is hard not to be angry—angry for Britain and its reputation; angry for the brave young men and women who are serving in difficult and dangerous conditions in Iraq; angry, too, for a House of Commons that was persuaded to support military action on a flawed prospectus and, as we now know, with no clear strategy for the aftermath of conflict.

Edward Leigh: We were told last week—the reports were, no doubt, inspired by the Government—that extra troops were to be deployed to Iraq, perhaps in Najaf. However, there were reports this weekend that, on the contrary, we were no longer in for the long haul and that we were talking about withdrawing troops before 2005–06. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government owe the House an explanation of their strategy and of what we are planning to do with a country for which we have taken responsibility?

Menzies Campbell: There is no way to answer the hon. Gentleman's question other than in the affirmative. I shall set out some conditions that are appropriate in the event that additional troops are thought necessary, but he has put his finger on something that I hope the Secretary of State will explain, not just to the House but to people outside.
	It is hard not to be angry that, in the name of a coalition of which the United Kingdom is a member, detainees have been subject to degrading and inhumane treatment, for which no one takes political responsibility. Asking Private Lynddie England to take all the blame seems a little unfair.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the proposition that, if the United States Government deny people in Guantanamo bay their civil and legal rights, it is perhaps not surprising that junior soldiers feel the same way, and that that is a severe indictment of that Administration?

Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that point on previous occasions in the House and I have supported him on some of those occasions. There are still British citizens in Guantanomo bay and they are entitled to due process and a trial according to the accepted principles of law. If no such trial is available to them, they should be returned to the United Kingdom so that we can consider whether or not there are adequate grounds for prosecution.
	I am angry about these matters, not because I was deceived, but because my scepticism and that of many others is increasingly justified. I am angry because our relationship with the United States, put into sharp focus in recent times, should be a partnership of influence, and we should not be so subordinate that we often appear to be subservient. What sort of relationship is it if we are actively discouraged from public criticism of the US Administration and their ultimate responsibility for the humiliation or, as one writer put it, debauchery towards the Iraqis in their custody? In the House, we have to rely on the feline ambiguities of the Leader of the House.

Geraint Davies: While concurring with the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Guantanamo bay and the mistreatment of detainees there and in Iraq, does he not agree that all decent people in the House and beyond hope and pray for peace and democracy in Iraq? Is it not distasteful that his party is putting success or failure in Iraq at the top of its Euro-election campaign agenda, so that real failures such as the assassination this morning or imaginary failures such as the forgeries in the Daily Mirror are desirable to fuel electoral success? Is that not shameful opportunism when there is a need for genuine debate?

Menzies Campbell: I have not met a single elector who objects to the issue of Iraq being raised in relation to the European elections. In the course of the campaign, I have met many people who wish to raise the question of Iraq and Britain's role. They wish to express their anxiety about the nature of present events and the long-term consequences for the United Kingdom.
	What sort of relationship allows Members of Congress more licence to criticise the Bush Administration than it does the British Government? The harsh, unpalatable truth for Washington is that only the United Nations can save us all. All the coalition eggs are well and truly in the UN basket. If Brahimi fails, what is the alternative strategy? I do not have an answer to that question, but those who took military action against Iraq ought to have one, because it is by no means certain that the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi will be successful.

Clare Short: Ambassador Brahimi has been asked to appoint an interim Government who are truly representative of the Iraqi people, and we all hope that he succeeds. There is more hope if he appoints that Government rather than the coalition, but that does not address the problem of troop withdrawal. We have not said that if the interim Government ask us to withdraw our troops we will do so; we have said that we hope that that would come about. Mr. Brahimi had the same authority in Afghanistan, but he had no authority over the US troops, and the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. His authority to appoint an interim Administration does not necessarily mean that we will get an exit strategy for our troops, but that has not been made clear.

Menzies Campbell: My view is that it would be difficult for a provisional Government, appointed by Lakhdar Brahimi, to exercise the sort of responsibility that the right hon. Lady suggests, but I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, when we get to the stage of a democratically elected Government of the Iraqi people, that institution must have total responsibility for the conduct of Iraq. Indeed, at that point, I would say that the United Kingdom and others should begin a phased withdrawal of their troops. The responsibility for Iraq, given to the Iraqi people, must be whole and complete.

Robert Wareing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will continue.
	In New York, we should be arguing for a Security Council resolution that is maximalist, not minimalist—arguing along with France and Russia for the maximum transfer of authority to the provisional Government—but the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people must be about substance, not simply ceremony. The raising of flags and patriotic music will be no adequate substitute for real authority.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) mentioned the exit strategy. Let me suggest principles that should most certainly apply. First, all our effort should be directed to supporting the United Nations in establishing a provisional Government, to whom as many functions as possible should be transferred. Secondly, once a provisional Government have been established, all our efforts should be directed to supporting the United Nations in the preparations for the elections. Thirdly, as soon as an Iraqi Government have been democratically elected, under United Nations supervision, United Kingdom troops should begin a phased withdrawal.

Hugh Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware no doubt that the Iraq governing council, no less, has accused the United Nations of massive institutional fraud over the oil-for-food programme—a fraud that is estimated to be about $64 billion. Bearing it in mind that that fraud has directly enriched Saddam Hussein and his supporters, undoubtedly involves members of the Security Council and, indeed, the UN itself and has probably provided money to fund the very insurgency that our troops are now fighting, does he believe that the UN is an entirely suitable body to carry out that task?

Menzies Campbell: I ask the hon. Gentleman to suggest an alternative. I do not know that there is any queueing up, and I do not know that there is any alternative strategy on offer either. He is quite right to point to the disgrace of the fraud in relation to the oil-for-food programme. Perhaps he should consider whether he is entitled to say that members of the Security Council may have been involved—that is a rather sweeping statement—but he is certainly right to highlight the fraud. I for one am most certainly disappointed that the extent of the fraud was so considerable and that moneys may well have been diverted in the directions to which he has referred, but if he has an alternative to Lakhdar Brahimi, let us hear it, because it is only in him, in the United Nations and in the Secretary-General of the United Nations that any prospect rests of keeping the date of 30 June, chosen not for its intrinsic merit, but rather for its importance as a signpost in the American domestic political campaign. That date can be kept only if the United Nations ensures that it is kept.

Edward Garnier: The one thing that puzzles me about the line of argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his fellow Liberal Democrats advance is that the United Nations—while it may or may not have some moral authority, depending on one's point of view—has no resources other than those provided by its membership. There is no army or police force belonging to the United Nations. Where are the army and the police force that he wants and needs to enhance the security situation in Iraq, outside the current coalition? There are no volunteers who will simply put on blue berets and come and do the job that he wants them to do.

Menzies Campbell: I do not think anyone has suggested a blue beret force in the circumstances of Iraq.

John Wilkinson: Who is going to do it?

Menzies Campbell: Exactly. As the hon. Gentleman says, who is going to do it? It is not possible to have a blue beret force, but we could have had a Security Council resolution in the same terms as that which was adopted for the first Gulf war, which provided that all necessary means should be used for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, which accepted that the United States would be in command, but which insisted that that force had to report back and be subject to the authority of the Security Council. That most certainly would have been a much more politically attractive solution than the one that was arrived at, of a self-generating coalition going in the circumstances that we now know and side-stepping the United Nations.

Angus Robertson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are a number of countries with distinguished United Nations military service that have said that they would be happy to commit troops in a circumstance that was fully authorised by the United Nations—countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, which have a particular credibility in the Muslim world? Would that not be an attractive proposition, to try and get the maximalist United Nations mandate that is propounding, and help us move with international credibility to a new phase of peacekeeping?

Menzies Campbell: There is no doubt that if such countries were to become part of a coalition authority, they would require a maximalist United Nations resolution, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is the possibility between now and 30 June, for example, of putting together a UN force with blue berets. In my judgment that is not practical. That is why I have referred not only on this occasion but on others to the advantage of an arrangement similar to that used in the first Gulf war.

Gisela Stuart: I am touched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's faith in United Nations resolutions. How would he answer constituents of mine, refugees from Iraq, who said that if one mistake was made, it was in the first Gulf war, when we stopped at the border in compliance with the UN resolution?

Menzies Campbell: If I may say so, I do not think that the hon. Lady was in the House at that time. She would not have found much support for that view. She would not have found much support for that view from President Bush's father or from Mr. John Major, who was the Prime Minister at the time. The consequence of doing what she suggests is that the coalition that had been created for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait would have broken up. In addition, the Iraqi forces at that time were much more effective than those we found when the military action took place last year and there would have been the risk of very substantial casualties. The arguments against going to Baghdad in 1991 were overwhelming at the time, and in my judgment have not been diminished in any way since.

Robert Wareing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if the occupation continues after 30 June, and all that the Iraqi people are being offered is another appointed Government—appointed by whoever—that will be viewed by the Iraqi resistance in rather the same way as the Vichy regime was viewed by the French resistance in wartime France?

Menzies Campbell: But it is not practical to have elections between now and 30 June. That is the date of the agreed handover to a provisional Government. [Interruption.] It might meet the hon. Gentleman's point if there were a sufficient and detailed commitment to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman a hearing. It is unfair to him when there are so many conversations going on.

Menzies Campbell: What would meet the hon. Gentleman's point would be if it was clear that the move towards elections was serious and was being undertaken; that there was voter registration and that the necessary institutions were being established. But I do not think that it is possible to achieve what he would like to achieve in the time available.
	As soon as an Iraqi Government have been democratically elected, UK troops should begin a phased withdrawal. But in the meantime, I am firmly of the view that we should commit no further forces to Iraq unless at the request of British commanders on the ground; unless for the purpose of securing the safety of existing British forces in Iraq; unless for the purpose of fulfilling legal obligations incumbent upon us under international law, including, if necessary, a fresh resolution from the Security Council; unless any such troops remain under United Kingdom operational command; and unless any such troops are deployed within the area currently under United Kingdom control.
	There should be no question of British forces extending their role and responsibility in Iraq. There should be no question of British forces providing a substitute for any forces that may have been withdrawn by other coalition members. We have made more than an adequate contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members think so; I am certain the whole country thinks so.
	Operational command of such troops should remain with United Kingdom commanders. General Sir Michael Jackson, with characteristic frankness, a fortnight ago described differences in doctrine between ourselves and the United States and we have seen illustrations of those differences. We should not put our forces into a position in which they may have to choose between following an order or following their training and their instincts.
	It is now commonplace for some to argue for immediate withdrawal. To those I say this: consider the consequences of that. Inevitably, terrorism and violence would flourish and instability could easily spread throughout the region. But more significantly, the United Nations' effort, which is the only political track presently available, would be fatally undermined.
	To be against immediate withdrawal is not to be in favour of an open-ended commitment. The Iraqi people must be given the responsibility for themselves and their government as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the work being done by the UK and its Coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq; regards any mistreatment of Iraqis by Coalition forces to be unacceptable; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British forces in Iraq in assisting the Iraqi people in rebuilding Iraq; applauds the work of the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, for his contribution to helping establish a sovereign Iraqi Interim Government which will assume power by 30th June; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a new Security Council resolution and deliver the wishes of the Iraqi people for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq."
	On behalf of the Government, I should like to repeat our regret following the death this morning of Izzedine Saleem, president of the Iraq governing council. Our thoughts are with him and with his family at this terrible time, to whom we extend our condolences.
	Izz al-Din Salim was a tireless advocate for Iraq and for its people. He was exiled from his home by Saddam Hussein and, until last year, lived in London, where he worked as a writer and activist in the service of his people. When the former regime fell, he returned to Iraq as head of the Islamic Dawa party in Basra, where he earned the respect of local people and the coalition.
	Izz al-Din Salim's death is an enormous loss to Iraq. It is too early to say whether this morning's attack was specifically targeted at him. In any event, it is a further tragic demonstration of the callousness of the minority who seek to challenge the rule of law and undermine the establishment of a democratic, peaceful Iraq. It demonstrates why we are determined to deal with those who perpetrate these criminal acts of terrorism. It demonstrates that these attacks are against the Iraqi people themselves, just as much as against coalition forces. We are working with the Iraqi people, and together we will succeed.
	Izzedine Saleem's death also demonstrates why the coming months are critical for the future of Iraq.

Ann Clwyd: I join my right hon. Friend in offering my condolences to the family of Mr. Salim. I spent half an hour talking to Mr. Salim last Thursday. He was a gentle scholar who had contributed a lot to the governing council and to the future of a democratic Iraq. It was said earlier that his death was a triumph for terrorism, but it is the complete opposite. It will be a triumph for terrorism unless we stay the course, and Mr. Salim and all the members of the governing council, and all those who are fighting for the future of a democratic Iraq, would, I think, feel exactly the same. We must stay the course.

Geoff Hoon: Like me, my hon. Friend has met a number of members of the governing council, which is united in its determination to resist terrorism and criminal acts. I emphasise that the attack was against the Iraqi people, whom we cannot afford to let down, and I entirely support my hon. Friend's point.
	We are attempting to transfer authority, after decades of tyranny, to an elected, representative Government in Iraq. I specifically refer to the transfer of authority, rather than simply sovereignty, because sovereignty resides with the people of Iraq and cannot be taken from them, although their rights have frequently been usurped over the years.
	On 30 June, authority in Iraq will pass to the Iraqi interim Government; the extent of the authority that we will be able to hand to them has been subject to recent debate. On 1 July, the coalition provisional authority and the Iraqi governing council will dissolve. The interim Government will, however, initially limit themselves, by confining their work to the effective day-to-day administration of Iraq's affairs, which is only right. Decisions about Iraq's longer-term future should be left to the elected transitional Government—as every Iraqi to whom I have spoken agrees. That is why we are moving forward with that strategy, and the Iraqi people should have the opportunity to choose those who will decide their future.

Donald Anderson: To what extent will the interim Government have strategic control of the new multinational force after the transfer of sovereignty?

Geoff Hoon: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I will deal with the precise security arrangements in a moment. Obviously, some discussions about the precise level of control remain, but I assure him that we are alive to the issue. We will try to find a sensible solution that meets the needs of coalition forces and secures their safety, but recognises that authority has properly passed to the Iraqis.

Anne Campbell: I have received several e-mails from constituents over the past few days claiming that the British Government are about to send 4,000 extra troops to Najaf. Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that point?

Geoff Hoon: Again, my hon. Friend anticipates a passage in my speech that I shall reach in a moment. As I have done on a number of occasions, I assure her and the House that the Government have taken no decisions on any number of extra troops. I will inform the House in the usual way as soon as any such decision is taken, if it is taken.

Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend says that the nature of the Iraqi Government is a matter for Iraqis. Does he have a view on whether that Government should be secular? Would he be concerned if religious parties were to form a Government next January?

Geoff Hoon: In a different context, my hon. Friend would be the first to say that the nature of any Government should be a matter for the people in question, and that is my answer to him.

Alice Mahon: On the constitution and an elected Iraqi Government's right to decide the nature of the state, is it true that, once elected, the Iraqi Government will not have the right to rescind previous changes such as the wholesale privatisation of the public sector in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: An Iraqi Government will consider such matters when they are established with democratic legitimacy conferred by elections. The interim Government's main task, acting under the transitional administrative law that we and the Iraqi leaders worked so hard to agree, will be to prepare the ground for full elections to a transitional assembly around the turn of the year. For the first time, Iraq will have a representative body chosen by all its people that works for the country as a whole. The assembly will be responsible for choosing a transitional Government and for preparing a constitution in time for general elections towards the end of 2005.

Clare Short: Ambassador Brahimi made it clear that elections cannot be held without security. If an interim Government are appointed, there may be so much chaos that elections are not possible. Does my right hon. Friend share that worry, and what should be done?

Geoff Hoon: I do not share that worry, but it is a risk that we have to address. That is why our forces, alongside Iraqi forces, are working so hard to deal with the security situation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would support them in their efforts to do that precisely to allow elections to take place in accordance with the schedule.
	It has always been our intention to involve the United Nations in the process. We are working towards a new Security Council resolution. We expect it to be agreed before the transition and to emphasise the new arrangements for full Iraqi authority. Any new resolution will take account of the views of United Nations Security Council members, other international partners and, most important, the Iraqi people. We expect that it will clearly mark the next stage in the transition towards democracy in Iraq, confirm the mandate of the multinational force and specify the future role of the United Nations, including support for the political process and assistance in preparing elections.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the strategic purposes of the resolution must be to attract other countries, which do not currently do so, to provide soldiers for Iraq? Consequently, the language and the nature of the resolution must be drafted with that principally in mind.

Geoff Hoon: I would regard that as an incidental advantage of such a resolution; I would hardly describe it as the main reason for it. If, as a result of passing a new Security Council resolution, other countries are willing to deploy their forces to Iraq, I will strongly support it. I am sure that that also applies to the Iraqi people.
	United Nations international staff are already operating in Iraq and in the region. One team, headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, has been consulting Iraqis on the formation of the interim Government; the other, headed by Carina Perelli, has been examining options for the electoral process.
	We also believe that the United Nations has a vital role to play in preparing for elections and giving advice on the constitutional process in 2005. We would welcome United Nations involvement in the full range of humanitarian and reconstruction tasks in Iraq. We very much value the United Nation's constructive attitude towards Iraq's future, expressed by the Secretary-General down. It is all the more commendable following the terrible tragedy that the United Nations suffered last August.
	Regrettably, as we make both political and economic progress, some continue to oppose the process: former Ba'athists, terrorists and others willing to use extreme violence, sometimes for personal gain. I assure the House that we will not allow the violent few to hold hostage the prospects and fortunes of the many Iraqi people who want peace and progress. We are determined to do what we can to provide security in Iraq, for it is only within a secure and stable environment that reconstruction and political life can flourish.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that. It will be essential to have troops on the ground to ensure that that happens. I have constituents who are currently serving in Iraq and are worried about the possible extension of six months to nine months. Will he answer that point?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present during Defence questions, when I dealt with that. There is no reason at this stage to extend the usual tour of duty for British soldiers in Iraq. However, if circumstances on the ground make it necessary, we will have to make that decision. However, no such decision has yet been made.

Helen Jackson: The continuing violence must hugely worry civilians in Iraq. I realise that it is not Government policy to count the number of civilians killed and injured, but will coalition forces undertake that now, or in future under the authority of the United Nations, to build confidence among Iraqi civilians that things are getting better, not worse?

Geoff Hoon: As I believe was suggested earlier, it is extraordinarily difficult to count precisely the numbers killed or injured when engaging coalition forces. Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend an example from recent events. Yesterday, British forces were attacked in al-Amarah with 15 mortar rounds. I am pleased that they were able to respond effectively. Two British soldiers were wounded and several militia—we estimate 30, but that is necessarily an estimate that cannot be made with great precision—were killed. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) came pretty close to suggesting that British forces in that position were required to go back into danger and ordered to count the dead bodies of those who had attacked them in the first place. I simply appeal to him to be realistic.

Menzies Campbell: If that was the inference that the right hon. Gentleman derived from what I said, let me say that I did not intend in any circumstances to give that impression. There is, however, a legitimate question as to whether we keep a count of the civilian casualties, because of their nature and because of the consequences for public opinion in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman leapt to his feet in a passable display of indignation, but I wonder how he would, in practice, do what he suggests. It is all very well to make these suggestions, but somebody actually has to do it. I have said that we do our very best to make a reasonable estimate of the number of casualties, but when soldiers come under attack, they return fire. They cannot be expected to go back and count precisely how many people they have killed.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the Secretary of State were to instruct troops to go back to count the casualties, does he think that people would believe the numbers that were given?

Geoff Hoon: I think that we have probably dealt with this issue in sufficient detail, although I see that another hon. Member is anxious to intervene.

Nicholas Winterton: I am rather disappointed that, in the debate so far, we have been so negative about the role that UK troops have played in Iraq. I believe that we have done a magnificent job. Will the Secretary of State advise the House of the role that he foresees over the next six weeks and beyond 30 June for British forces, who I believe are the finest in the world? We need to say that, to give them encouragement for the very difficult work that they are undertaking. I have a great belief in our forces.

Geoff Hoon: I entirely agree. I was rather allowing the facts of the engagement I mentioned to speak for themselves. British forces came under attack from an overwhelming force. They were ambushed and responded in kind, achieving a considerable military success, at a cost of two lightly wounded British casualties. That was a remarkable success. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's other observations about the abilities of Britain's armed forces.
	This weekend, Basra and Nasiriyah saw a number of attacks against the coalition resulting in injury to three British soldiers and the loss of one Italian soldier. Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen reports over the weekend of a failed mortar attack against British forces in Basra that resulted in three Iraqi civilians being killed and three more wounded. This tragic incident highlights once again the indiscriminate nature of the attacks being carried out, not only against coalition forces but against the Iraqi people themselves.
	The Falluja brigade has been formed from former Iraqi soldiers. It is a temporary organisation designed to provide security in the town, patrolling alongside US forces. Our objectives in Falluja remain unchanged: to ensure that armed groups can no longer intimidate local people and to confiscate heavy weapons from lawless insurgents. In Najaf, we should remind ourselves of what lies behind the recent tensions. Iraqi prosecutors investigating the murder of a senior cleric, Ayatollah Abdel Majid al-Khoei, have strong grounds for the arrest of a number of suspects linked to al-Sadr, including al-Sadr himself.
	In the meantime, al-Sadr's illegal militia have been harassing local people in several cities, including Basra and al-Amarah, unlawfully occupying public buildings and terrorising women on the streets and in universities. We have attempted to disarm al-Sadr's militia peacefully and, when necessary, by force. Our efforts are having some success. We judge that al-Sadr's support, while vocal and violent, is indeed limited and may well be on the wane. In both Falluja and Najaf, we continue to seek political solutions where possible and will, of course, respect the nature of the holy sites.

Tam Dalyell: What care is being taken not to damage the great shrines at Najaf and Karbala? Apart from any cultural considerations, risking such damage really is playing with Shi'ite fire.

Geoff Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the sensitivity of the holy sites, which is why we are taking great care to respect them. This also seems relevant to the attitude of the Shi'a towards al-Sadr himself, because the overwhelming majority of them do not support or approve of his behaviour. In that disapproval lies the political solution that I have set out.

Lembit �pik: I listened with interest when the Secretary of State said that, in certain parts of Iraq, the Government and the Army will seek to find political solutions. To what extent are the Government determined to apply the lessons learned in Northern Irelandsome of which have been very useful and constructiveto the situation in Iraq? Or does he feel that there are no comparisons to be drawn?

Geoff Hoon: There are never exact comparisons, but I certainly believe that British troops on patrol in Iraq daily apply the lessons that have been learned so painfully over a long period in Northern Ireland. The other, wider point to make is that there will not ultimately be a military solution to this kind of crisis. Whatever security action we take on the ground has to be supported and complemented by an appropriate political process. That is precisely the strategy that I am setting out on behalf of the Government.

Tony Baldry: rose

Geoff Hoon: Perhaps I may make a little progress. I have given way a number of times, although I will give way in due course.
	Security sector reform is a crucial part of our strategy to allow the Iraqi people to rely less on coalition forces. We are making strong progress, and our armed forces are playing a vital role. As the House will recall, I announced last year that we would send extra forces to Iraq for just that task. They are supported by civilians from the United Kingdom and by contributions from our allies, and are doing an excellent job. It is not just the coalition in Iraq that recognises the importance of this work for Iraq's future. A substantial police training centre for Iraqi officers is operating in Jordan and producing large numbers of graduates each month. Other countries have also privately offered help, and we are exploring their proposals.
	There are now close to 80,000 trained Iraqi police, as well as tens of thousands of other security personnel, including border guards, facilities protection staff and civil defence forces. In the British area, more than 12,000 police have been recruited, and we have trained some 8,000, either in Jordan or in the police training centre that we established with our Danish coalition partners. Six battalions of the Iraqi civil defence corpssome 5,000 peoplehave been recruited, trained and equipped, as have 5,000 border police, which is some 60 per cent. of the assessed requirement. Raw numbers, however, can seldom provide the full picture.
	On the ground, real, tangible progress has been made, with Iraqi police on patrol across the country. Those police are an enormous credit to Iraq and have shown great bravery and resolve in the face of vicious attacks. For example, after the recent terrorist outrages in Basra, which killed more than a dozen schoolchildren, the Iraqi police stabilised the situation and are now investigating. The Iraqi Ministry of Health, which has fully passed to Iraqi control, provided medical care on the scene.

Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State is describing the action that has been taken on security and military grounds, but it is quite clear that one of the problems that we have had in Iraq is the concept of the coalition forces being occupiers. The UN resolution refers to them as occupiers. All of us in the House are supposedly politicians, and we know that we have to win people's hearts and minds. Will he give the House some idea of the thinking and the work that is being done to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people, so that they cease to see the coalition as occupiers and regard us as part of the process that will lead sooner, rather than later, to their liberation?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation. He will know, probably as well as I do, that the word occupier, which is not the happiest word in this context, is one that we are required to use by virtue of the Geneva conventions. It sets out our status. Obviously, that will change on 30 June, which is why we are working in such a determined way towards that date. However, he is also right, in the sense that we are helping with the reconstruction of Iraq. The coalition provisional authority reports that around 20,000 reconstruction projects have been completedbuilding Iraq's infrastructure, generating jobs and getting its economy moving. The United Kingdom is involved in some 2,700 of those projects, and every day the quality of life in Basra gets better.

Kenneth Clarke: Following the same theme as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), this is a very valuable description of the security situation, but it seems to be in pursuit of a totally unchanged political policy. I detect no tone of any change. After June, as we get a UN resolution, what attempts are going to be made to internationalise the problem? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need the support of the Russians, the French, the Muslim countries, if we can get it, and perhaps some Asian countries? Are other countries going to be involved in the political resolution, or will that remain totally in the hands of the occupying forces and people who are free to contribute troops and money, if they wish to join in?

Geoff Hoon: At least two of the countries that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentionsRussia and Francewill have to sign up to the Security Council resolution, so they will be engaged in a debate, and indeed in the political process set out in any new Security Council resolution. As I indicated to the House earlier, one of the incidental benefits of such a resolution is the possibility of more countries providing troops on the ground and, therefore, more countries being prepared to engage in the reconstruction effort.
	That is crucial in providing employment for Iraqis, which gives them a stake in the development of their country and which is proving remarkably successful. I can give the House a long list of achievements. About 90 schools have been refurbished in our area of responsibility and a further 140 refurbishment projects are under way. We have completed 65 general health projects, 16 hospital projects and 32 health centre projects. A programme is under way to refurbish something as mundane as petrol stations in southern Iraq. Some 21 berths in Umm Qasr port are open to deep-draft ships. A grain-receiving facility has been renovated and can now process up to 600 tonnes of grain an hour. A whole range of projects has been set up across the country to deliver precisely the improvements asked for.

George Foulkes: Should not my right hon. Friend correct the misleading impression given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that only British and American troops are in Iraq? I have just come back from Budapest, and I know that Hungary has troops in Iraq under Polish command, whom it will continue to keep there. Some 27 other countries have troops in Iraq. Should not that fact be spread more widely by the Government to counteract the propaganda that only Britain and America are there?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that 30 countries are providing troops and sharing security responsibilities as they work closely alongside Iraqis. I would be willing to see that figure enlarged by other countries providing forces to Iraq.
	There has been speculation in recent weeks that more UK forces may be on their way to Iraq, either to replace Spanish troops who have recently left or to provide more command capability. In fact, US forces have replaced the Spanish contingent. As far as our own area is concerned, we judge that we have sufficient forces in Iraq, although we always keep that under close review.
	We are considering, with partners, the levels and disposition of forces in the context of the crucial period we are now entering, from the establishment of an interim Government through to the election of a transitional assembly and Government early next year. We have not yet reached any conclusion on what that may mean for our own military contribution. If we decide to make any significant change, we shall, as I have already indicated, inform the House in the usual way.

Nigel Evans: Winning hearts and minds is one of the important things that British troops have to do. Recent events have made that far more difficult because of stories appearing in newspapers that have proved to be false. I am the Member of Parliament who represents Fulwood, which is home to the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Does the Secretary of State accept that the great anguish and frustration felt by members of the regiment and their families has been relieved by the fact that the stories proved to be fake? Will he assure the House that the Daily Mirror is fully complying with the investigation now taking place so that those who are culpable may be brought to justice and so that everyone may know that what was published in the newspapers over the past two weeks put the lives of our servicemen, which were already at stake, under even greater tension?

Geoff Hoon: I, too, have received strong representations from the hon. Gentleman's constituents and from those of surrounding constituencies that provide recruits for the regiment. The Mirror group has certainly said that it will fully co-operate with the investigation, but I have not yet seen the results of that.

Michael Ancram: rose

Geoff Hoon: I must make progress. A great number of hon. Members want to speak, but I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to raise a matter on which he may need some notice before replying, but which is germane to the debate.
	A story is running on the wires, on Associated Press in particular, that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent has exploded in Iraq near a United States military convoy. Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said:
	The Iraq Survey Group confirmed that a 155 millimetre artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device), which was discovered by a US force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of the agent.
	There were no casualties.
	As we are constantly talking about weapons of mass destruction, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have the chance to take advice on that incident and inform the House of the background to it.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for setting out that information for the benefit of hon. Members. I have been in the House since business started today, so I have not had an opportunity to receive that information. In due course, no doubt, I shall be able to verify it. It certainly indicates the kind of risks and threats that coalition forces face and the extreme lengths to which some fanatics who oppose us are prepared to go to cause loss of life.

Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: I really must make progress and reach a conclusion, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
	I regret that allegations in recent weeks about the conduct of some coalition forces have marred our record in Iraq. No one who saw those photos from Abu Ghraib could fail to be shocked. The President of the United States and the United States Defence Secretary have apologised for any mistreatment, and I am fully confident that the United States' investigations will be comprehensive and thorough. Mistreatment of prisoners is wholly unacceptable. In an environment where insurgents are prepared to murder police officers, humanitarian aid workers, civilian contractors and innocent children, our own standards cannot be allowed to fall. Allegations have also been made against UK forces and they are investigated as soon as they are received.
	Hon. Members have rightly raised concerns about the effect that recent allegations will have on our standing in the Islamic world. I can assure the House that we are considering how we can ensure that we make it clear to the Iraqi people how seriously we take these charges, and how determined we are to deal with them. The governor of Basra, however, whom I met only a few weeks ago, has said that he has not registered a single allegation of human rights abuses by British forces.
	We will continue our mission in Iraq. I have no doubt that when we succeedand succeed we shallthe lives of ordinary Iraqis will be improved beyond anything they could have dreamed of under Saddam Hussein. We are making further progress every day. It would be wrong of us to falter now.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State has finished.

Michael Ancram: I, too, wondered whether the Secretary of State had finished or was giving way yet again.
	I welcome the debate, although it is a disgrace that it is not being held in Government time. Had the Government had the courage to initiate such a debate, and as Iraq is not for them or us a cynical European or local government election issue, we could have had a full day's debate on this important and urgent matter.
	As both the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and the Secretary of State indicated, this debate is being held in the grim shadow of the tragic assassination today of Izz al-Din Salim by those who still seek to prevent the peaceful return of Iraq to the Iraqis. They must not be allowed to succeed.
	I shall start with two comments. First, we were right to support the Iraq war. The threat posed to international peace and security was acknowledged and real. Iraq and its peoples needed rescuing from Saddam. Those two facts were not going to change and if we had not done it last year, we would still be looking to do it in the future, at almost certainly greater risk and cost. It is worth remembering that, if the Liberal Democrats had had their way, Saddam would still be murdering his people, still destabilising that volatile region, still posing a threat to international peace and security and still requiring to be dealt with.

Clare Short: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I give way to the right hon. Lady, who voted for the war in the Cabinet.

Clare Short: We do not have votes in the Cabinet. We do not have much discussion, either. Everyone tends to justify their own actions, but surely the lesson is that being willing to use force to back up the authority of the UN to support the people of Iraq in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, perhaps by indicting him, could have been done more carefully, in a more considered way and with more international co-operation. The people of Iraq would be much better off if that had happened. Should we not all face up to that and stop trying to justify every position that we have taken in the past?

Michael Ancram: I will take a lot from the right hon. Lady but I find it difficult to take that when she stayed in the Cabinet throughout the war, regardless of the fact that there had been no second UN resolution.
	Support for the war, however, does not and cannot entail placid acceptance of everything that has followed. That support cannotnor should it, in a democratic Parliamentinhibit us from criticising the conduct and drift of the post-conflict programme.
	Secondly, the Prime Minister hit rock bottom last week when he inferred that our criticism of him was a criticism of our armed forces. We have always made it abundantly clear that we not only support the effective and courageous manner in which our armed forces are carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq in the face of great difficulties and dangers, but are immensely proud of their professionalism and dedication.
	The whole House will share my disgust at the malicious attempts in some quarters to damage the reputation of our armed forces in Iraq by making untrue or faked allegations that also endanger their lives. With the editor rightly gone, I hope that the Daily Mirror lessons have been well and truly learned. Of course, where there are serious and genuine allegations of abuse, those responsible must be rooted out and dealt with firmly and effectively. We can have no time for such people.

Peter Kilfoyle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that at the time when war was embarked upon, Iraq represented a real danger to other countries. Can he tell me of any country, apart from Israel, that recorded in any international forum any threat that it felt itself to be under from Iraq?

Michael Ancram: The words that I used were, The threat posed to international peace and security was acknowledged and real. That is because during the previous 12 years, 17 United Nations resolutions had been passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which relates to threats to international peace and security and which allows, under article 43, for military action to be used to deal with such threats.

Several hon. Members: rose

Michael Ancram: I want to make a little progress. This is not our debate and I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. Those who know me will be aware that I am usually very generous in taking interventions.

Kenneth Clarke: rose

Michael Ancram: However, I shall give way to my old friend, the former Chancellor.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful for that privileged treatment and I shall try not to abuse it.
	Given that I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that our attitudes today cannot be determined by whether we were in favour of the war in the first place, does he agree that even if the war was justified, the present situation has been made infinitely worse by the painful lack of planning for what was to follow after the occupation and the incompetence with which the interim Government have at times conducted themselves in trying to impose security on the country? Is it not important that the House should address itself to the problem that we now face: how do we get from being an unpopular occupying force to being part of a genuinely international effort to create a stable Iraq?

Michael Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has either been reading my mind or reading my notes from a distance, because he pre-empts what I am about to say.
	This debate is important because of the crisis of public confidence that has been brought about by the lack of direction, lack of candour and general incompetence in the Government's handling of Iraq. That has its roots in the Prime Minister's refusal to hold a proper inquiry into the Government's use, in the run-up to the war, of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It has been further deepened by the incredible failure of the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues to keep abreast of the serious reports on prisoner abuse by the Red Cross and Amnesty International, and by the extraordinarily conflicting reasons for that failure that were given in the House last weekincluding, as hon. Members may recall, the Secretary of State for Defence saying that he had not read the Red Cross report because it had been given to the Government in confidence. That is compounded, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says, by the Government's failure a year ago to set out a clear post-conflict planfor which, incidentally, I had been calling since the debate in this House on 24 September 2002.
	Strategy is still being developed on the hoof. Last Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary chose to announcenot in this House, but on BBC Onlinethat British troops would leave Iraq if the new post-30 June interim Government asked them to do so. Having called for the transfer of power to be real, not cosmetic, Conservative Members welcome that announcementbut why was it not made in Parliament and why was it not made earlier? There remain other unanswered questions that I shall come to shortly.
	Today, we find Downing street apparently briefing abouthon. Members can choose their phrase depending on the newspaper that they readgear changes and new exit strategies. To me, exit strategies are redolent of failure at a time when we need a clear, positive plan with a clear end game for achieving our overall objective: to return Iraq to the Iraqis under a representative and democratic Government.
	If we are to understand the strategy, we first need to know the full details of the handover on 30 June. To whom will it be made and who will have been responsible for making that decision? Given the role of the United Nations representative in the handover, what will be the role of the coalition in the run-up to the handover?
	We believe that, even in the remaining six weeks, there is still a need for a high-powered United Kingdom political representative in the coalition, working alongside General McColl on the military side, to ensure that the UK political voice is clearly heard and heeded.
	We need some answers now, to show that the handover will be a real transfer of sovereignty. How does the Foreign Secretary's statement on withdrawing UK troops if requested by the interim Government conform to what I understand was the crucial Brahimi agreement with Ayatollah Sistani, which was reported in Sir Jeremy Greenstock's article in The Economist on 7 May, namely, that the unelected Government who will emerge from the handover and precede elections will not have sovereign freedom to affect the future of the Iraqi state? How is that consistent with saying that they can decide whether coalition forces stay or go?
	We also need a clear security strategy to restore public order and stability in Iraq, not least, as has been said, because of the forthcoming elections next January. What will be the position of our troops if we are asked to remain after 30 June? Will they be, in the old phrase, in aid of the civil power at that power's request? What is a realistic assessment of when Iraqi security forces will be capable, in terms of numbers and training, to impose and maintain the necessary degree of security? Despite the fact that the Secretary of State told us again today that no decision has been made about whether further deployments of British troops will be needed, what is the likelihood of a requirement for more UK troop deployments and in what capacity? We should at least be given an indication.

Roger Gale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is one thing if further troops are necessary at the behest of British commanders to secure the safety and positions of British forces, but that many of us would be gravely concerned if there were to be an open-ended commitment for the deployment of British troops anywhere in Iraq at any time?

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He, too, must have such good eyesight that he can read my notes. I was just coming to a point that has been discussed over the weekend and raised in the debate: whether the House should vote on future deployments. I am firmly of the view, which I suspect is shared by my hon. Friend, given what he has just said, that the House should never try to second-guess operational decisions or requirements on the ground. However, where a decision is to be taken that would substantially or materially change the nature of our military involvement, which could include a request to undertake operations that are outside our current area or not under our command, seeking the opinion of the House would probably be justified. That does not indicate that we would oppose such deployment, but that we should want to consider it on its merits.

Paul Flynn: I welcome the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. Does he agree that the information that he gave the House earlier shows that there has indeed been a substantial change in the level of danger into which we are sending our troops? Does he also agree that a valuable precedent was established when the House voted to send our soldiers to Iraq to kill and, tragically, to be killed? Is it not clear that many of the assumptions on which those decisions were based were false and that there is a need for a new decision if more troops are to be sent?

Michael Ancram: I do not accept that our troops were sent to Iraq to kill and be killed; they went there to restore stability and democracy in that sad country after many years of a vicious and evil regime. I have said what I said about voting. I very carefully judged my words and do not want to add or detract from them.
	We need a credible economic strategy to create employment and to remove a major cause of resentment, which is itself a recruiting sergeant for dissent and worse. Lack of income is fostering enormous resentment in various parts of the country. As Jeremy Greenstock wrote, the guiding slogan for the coalition should be security and jobs, stupid.
	What plans are there to promote a comprehensive, long-term, job-creating investment programme? What plans are there to ensure a credible humanitarian strategy? For instance, what is the current situation in the hospital in Basra in relation to reported shortages of personnel and equipment?
	Would not reconstruction be more acceptable locally if it was bottom-up rather than applied top-down?
	We also need to ensure that anything that is done by the coalition that is not consistent with the objectives for which we went to war ceases. The objective of removing the threat posed to international peace and security by Saddam Hussein has been achieved, but the objective of creating a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq is not yet achieved.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend needs to be very careful. The stated purpose for going to war was to ensure compliance with United Nations resolutions. I did not happen to agree with it, but that was the stated purpose. No doubt the restoration or creation of democracy was an intended by-product, but it was not the lawful justification for the war.

Michael Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has, on many occasions, made the case against regime change. The terms of the United Nations resolutions acknowledged and recognised that Saddam Hussein was a threat to international peace and security and was required to be dealt with. That was the justification upon which we backed the decision to go to war. Indeed, I understand from the Foreign Secretary that that was also the position that he took at the time.
	We should, however, acknowledge, as the Secretary of State for Defence did, the substantial body of work of reconstruction that is actually being carried out in Iraq. Electricity is now more equitably distributed and more stable than it was under Saddam Hussein, who used to feed most of it into Baghdad for political reasons. Basra alone now receives 21 hours electricity each day, and the sweet water canal system that provides drinking water to 1.75 million residents of Basra city has been renovated. The number of telephone subscribers, including mobile users, is 33 per cent. greater than it was before the war. Some 2,500 schools have been refurbished and 70 million textbooks have been reprinted. Almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are functioning, more than 1,200 clinics are open and more than 3 million children under the age of five have received vaccinations. That is solid progress and we should recognise and welcome it.
	As several hon. Members have said, however, we must recognise what is undermining those efforts. In the vital battle for hearts and minds, perception matters. How the coalition is perceived matters, so how the coalition acts matters, too. There is a difference between what is seen as an army of liberation intent on restoring the state to its people and what is seen as a conquering army with all the heavy-handedness that can accompany that. I am always wary of commenting from afar on specific military actions without experiencing the real threat on the ground and the nature of the insurgents that are being faced. Nevertheless, I believe that the military conduct of United Kingdom forces has, in this regard, been exemplary.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall not give way again because, as I said, many other Members wish to speak in the debate.
	There is no doubt that confidence right across Iraq has been shattered by the horrific incidences of prisoner abuse, particularly in the Abu Ghraib prison. We roundly condemn them. Such behaviour has no place in the conduct of the army of a democratic state. They are not only unacceptable in themselves, but highly damaging to the coalition's credibility in Iraq. One thing that would help to prevent further such abuses is, independent monitoring of all detention facilities in Iraq. When the Minister replies to the debate, can he specifically confirm that all and every part of coalition detention facilities throughout Iraq are open to unfettered inspection by the Red Cross? I repeat: all and every part of coalition detention facilities. Perhaps he can also clarify whether, after 30 June, responsibility for these detention facilities will pass from the coalition to the interim government.
	I come finally to the underlying theme of this debatethe Government's relations with the United States. I bow to no one in my belief that our special relationship with America is crucial to our national interest. I believe in a true partnership with America, based on shared values, shared traditions and, frequently, shared interests. Shortly, Europe will be reminded of what, 60 years ago, the United States, as liberators, did for our war-ravaged continent and the debt of gratitude that we owe to them. Our relationship, however, must always be, as it always has been, a partnership in which frankness is at the core.
	We are constantly given the nudge and the wink that that is the case for the Prime Minister, but we are never given the evidence. Even the closest of allies have differences of opinion and emphasis. A candid friendship, except when confidentiality is essential, should not be afraid of such differencesand the advice that follows on from thembeing known.
	The Prime Minister, however, seems to have established a new doctrine of international relations. He never admits in public whether the differences even exist, let alone the discussions he has had on them. That reticence is not necessary. Margaret Thatcher let Ronald Reagan clearly know of her displeasure at the United States invasion of Grenada in 1983. She quickly made her concerns known after the Reykjavik summit in 1986 between Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev. How can the British people ever know what influence a British Prime Minister has brought to bear on our American allies if he never discloses it? Is it surprising that people wonder whether any influence has been brought to bear at all?
	Although the outlook in Iraq is, for the moment, bleak, we must never fall into the Liberal Democratic trap of just being negative. With them in power, Saddam would still be in place, he would still be murdering and he would still be threatening. Thank goodness he is not. Of course, things could be better. If the Government had planned more effectively when we pressed them to, if they had not dithered on the way forward and if they had not been so incompetent in keeping a grip on what was happening in Iraq, things today would be better. However, although time is short, we can still get it right. The cause we fought for was right and the objectives at which we are still aiming are right. For the sake of the people of Iraq and of international peace and security, we must ensure that they are achieved.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Barbara Roche: For very many Jewish people of my generation, the major influence has been the holocaust and the second world war. That has certainly influenced my political views. The enduring view of that conflict and the holocaust is that the international community of the day knew what was happening in the concentration camps and knew that the train lines were carrying Jewish people and others from all over Europe to their certain death and destruction, and failed to act. That is an abiding issue for me, my community and many others. Similarly, in recent times, the failure of the international community to take any action until it was far too late led to the genocide and holocaust in Rwanda. I use the word holocaust advisedly. I hardly ever use it because to use it in a loose way defiles the memory of those who died.
	For me, the Saddam's regime was horrific. I also represent a constituency with an enormous number of Iraqis, including many Iraqi Kurds. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), with her great experience of the situation in Iraq, spoke so well of their plight. The husband of one of my constituentsa very brave womanwas an officer in Saddam's army. He was a dissident. He was called in. He was tortured. While he was being tortured, his wife was brought in and raped in his presence. After the rape, he was executed. She managed to get out of the country. We subsequently managed to get her children out of the country and into this country. She is a brave and wonderful woman.
	Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. That is why the events of recent weeks are so disturbing.
	The accounts of what happened and of what was done by the American forces are absolutely dreadful. There are two accounts of those events. Either it is claimed, We were only obeying ordersa claim that again has an awful resonance for those who remember the events of the last centuryor, as I now believe, institutional torture was authorised at a very high level. None of us who saw those picturesthere are probably more to comecan stand by and let that torture happen. I certainly cannot, and I suspect that the whole House cannot. That means that we, on behalf of the Iraqi people, have to make it clear to the Americans in the strongest possible terms how we feel about events. It means that Donald Rumsfeld has to resign now and the practice of using private contractors in Iraq for intelligence purposes must cease. Given what we have heard over the weekend, it also means that we need to ask the Americans if it is correct that filming took place of other appalling incidents in Guantanamo bay involving British citizens who were detainees there.
	These dreadful events have overshadowed the magnificent contribution that so many of our British armed forces have made in the most difficult circumstances. There is no doubt that major acts of reconstruction are taking place and that our forces, with their long experience of engaging with civilian populations, have sought to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. There is obviously a great deal of self-sacrifice on behalf of those people, and I congratulate our forces on that. We must be under no illusion, however: with the Americans' recent record, none of that message will get through, either to the Iraqis or to the public in this country. That is why we have to protest in the strongest possible terms.
	What does that mean? We cannot simply desert the Iraqi peoplethat would be wrongbut on 30 June we have to hand over the maximum amount of authority to the Iraqi interim Government. That interim Government must be seen not as a puppet regime but as an interim Government who truly reflect the Iraqi people. We must make sure that the interim Iraqi Government have control over the security forces in Iraq if the country is to prosper and survive. The UN has to have the maximum power and control, and we all need to use our best endeavours to bring that about. On the deployment of troops, we of course need to listen to what British commanders on the ground are telling us, but we must also take into consideration the will of the Iraqis and the interim Iraqi Government, and we must do that in consultation with the UN.
	The situation is so grave that this is not the time to seek narrow political advantageit is too serious for that. We all have to resolve to work together for the Iraqi people. Iraq is a country with a brave, intelligent and able population, where parliamentary democracy once flourished. We must do everything possible to help it and to restore it, but, more importantly, we must do all that we can to give the Iraqi people control over their own lives and destinies.

John Maples: I would say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that if there is a moral imperative on countries such as ours, where human rights are respected, to intervene in countries where they are not, there is an awfully long list of the latterand that that was not the justification for the war. Saddam Hussein's was a particularly unpleasant regime, but there are many more unpleasant ones around the worldfor example, in Sudan, where rather more people are being killed.
	From the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) we heard something of an I told you so speech. I suppose he is entitled to make such a speech in the circumstances, but I am not sure that it was terribly helpful. From the Secretary of State, we heard an It's all going according to plan speech, but it clearly is notif there was ever a plan in the first place. Those such as I who supported the war from the startI still doare deeply troubled by the fact that there seems to be no effective plan. We keep making the same mistakes and do not learn from them.
	Now, we hope that on 30 June, Mr. Brahimi will somehow bail us out of the problems that we have encountered. Why it has taken us until 15 months after the end of the war to reach the point of handing over power to a more representative Iraqi Governmentor transitional authority, or whatever it is to be calledI simply do not know. We persevered for more than a year with a group of people who were largely selected by the United States and who did not have the confidence and support of the Iraqi people. That caused problems, and the actions of some of the American forces, their interrogation techniques and some of the ways in which we have set about enforcing security, have exacerbated those problems.
	However, we have to start from where we are. Whether or not one supported the war, there are two objectives that we should want to achieve. The first is to leave behind a reasonably peaceful Iraq where the rule of law is respected, at least to some extent, and which is starting down the road to democracy. We now have a duty to try to leave that behind us. The other policy objective is related to one of the reasons why I supported the war: I believedperhaps hoped is a better wordthat a reformed Iraq might act both as a beacon and as a rebuke to other countries in the region whose Governments are pretty awful.
	None of the 22 Arab countries has anything resembling a working democracy; in none is the rule of law respected; and all are giving rise to a brand of Islamic terrorism that presents a serious danger to us. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is connected with the nature of the regimes in those countries. I am not suggesting that we could set up Jeffersonian democracies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia tomorrow, because I suspect that the people would elect Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants. That is a measure of the problem facing us. However, if we do not start down that road, the existing regimes will be overthrown by Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants and we will face worse than the ayatollahs in Iran for a generation to come.
	Reform in the middle east is desperately needed. If we can leave behind us an Iraq in which the rule of law and human rights are observed and which is something approaching a democracy, it might reinforce our efforts to secure reform in the region. That is the only way to get long-term stability in the region and long-term security of our interests.

Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that democracy will not be achieved in the middle east until the Palestine-Israel situation is resolved? The reason why the US supports oppressive regimes in Egypt, Jordan and other countries is that their peoples are so angry about the suffering of the Palestinians that democracy would give rise to countries that are hostile. If we resolve the Palestine-Israel situation and get all weapons of mass destruction out of the region, a process of democratisation can start. Without such resolution, that process cannot start.

John Maples: I have said a great deal in the House and elsewhere about the middle east peace process. I have strong views, which I have taken up with the Prime Minister in writing and in speeches. However, I have only eight minutes and cannot deal with the subject now, save to say in defence of the United States that nobody could have tried harder to bring about peace in the region than President Clinton did in the last year of his Administration.
	We have to try to leave behind us a stable and, hopefully, democratic Iraq. We are relying heavily on Mr. Brahimi to give some authority to the transitional administration and to ensure that it has a large measure of credibility and support among the populationmore than the governing council, which was established by the provisional authority.
	It is worth viewing the security threat in that light. The security threat comes in part from criminal gangs, in part from supporters of the old regime and in part from Islamic terrorism. The latter is, to some extent, sustained by Shi'ite clerics and by outsiders, but it also has overtones of nationalismresentment of the presence of American troops. If the new authority has greater credibility and support, the security threat will diminish. Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, will deeply resent terrorists killing other Iraqis who have the support of the local population. Now the killers' excuse is that the governing council is the puppet of the United States and that its members are collaborators.
	I do not buy that as a reason for killing them, but nevertheless I accept that it may have some political resonance. If the governing council, which clearly has the support of the people, is moving towards the implementation of a constitution and preparations for elections within a year or so, there is a chance that the security threat will diminish. Iraqi security forces will increasingly have the authority and political support to deal with the threat. If terrorism is seen as an attack on home-grown politicians, they will have the backing of the population of their home country in trying to deal with it.
	It is difficult to see that happening without the presence of coalition forces beyond 1 July. We said that we would leave soon after that date, but I hope that we did not mean what we said, because there would be no chance of leaving behind us a stable Iraq. There are clearly forces bent on chaos or civil war, which is not in our interests and will certainly not send the right message to the region. As for sending more forces to Iraq, I would expect that to be done only if our military commanders wanted it. They should be sent only to the Iraqi region for which we are responsible and should be deployed in sufficient numbers to be commanded by a senior British officer, not parcelled out among other commands in Iraq.
	If the threat is reduced, there is a chance of achieving stability in the region, which is a prize worth hanging on to for a bit longer. To those who say that we should abandon the enterprise because it reinforces failure, I would reply that the consequences of failure, whether reinforced or not, are terrible for the credibility of British and American foreign policy; for the credibility of our threat to use force; and for our long-term objectives. If we back off now, the message across the region will be, Britain and the United States do not like this at all, but they are not going to do anything about it. That message, however, will suggest to people in those countries who are in favour of democracy and human rights that there is no support outside the region for what they want to do, thus handing the region over to two forcesthe forces of the status quo, which are undemocratic, corrupt and nepotistic, and the forces of extreme revolution in the hands of Mr. bin Laden and his supporters.
	It is worth reflecting on the consequences of abandoning our policy, both for us and for our alliance with the United States. If we leave the US alone in its enterprise it will probably retreat into isolationism. Most of Mr. Bush's critics in the House feared that he would pursue that policy when he was elected, but now they are criticising him for pursuing an interventionist policy abroad. British foreign policy and defence are built on our strong alliance with the United States and to abandon that alliance will leave us floundering in the middle of the Atlantic without the security of European defence co-operation, about which the present Government, the previous one and I share some scepticism. We have no alternative but to try to see the enterprise through and I believe that the objectives are worth pursuing.

George Foulkes: In that fateful vote on 18 March 2003, I supported the Government's deployment of troops. That was the first time ever that the House of Commons was allowed to vote on the deployment of troops and the Government should receive credit for that. It is also important to remember that they won that vote with a very substantial majority. Given subsequent events, however, some people have asked me whether I would vote the same way again. Two or three newspapers have phoned me to ask that very question, but I have not seen the results in print becauseI suspectthey did not get the answer that they wanted.
	I would do exactly the same againI told them thatbecause those of us who voted in favour thought very long, hard and carefully before doing so and we knew exactly what we were doing.
	Like all hon. Members and everyone beyond the House, I abhor the torture and humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners and I say so, but I also abhor the execution of Nick Berg. Not everyone says that, by the way; not everyone who condemns the other torture condemns that as well. However, the torturealbeit awfulis of a totally different order and extent to the vicious murder of thousands and the torture of many more by the Saddam Hussein regime, to which the mass graves testify.
	Of course the situation in Iraq is difficult. There is sabotage by external terrorists who do not want us to succeed. Criminals are inevitably exploiting the situation. Thankfully, Iraqi opinion is turning against extremists and terrorists, and we should be pleased about that. I got the impression that the Liberal spokesman wants everything to go wrong to prove that he was right and so that he can say, I told you so.

Tam Dalyell: It was not the critics in the House, but Senator Edward Kennedy who described the Abu Ghraib prison as under new managementbut the same as Saddam. It was Senator Kennedy, not us.

George Foulkes: Of course, Senator Kennedy is a well-respected man; he has his own history to deal with.
	As well as the sabotage and the criminal elements, thousands of children are being educated at school. Many ill people are being treated in hospitals. Oil and water are flowing again, in spite of attacks. Electricity supply is restored. Of course that does not hit the headlines, but it is the increasing reality in Iraq.
	In this extremely difficult situation, where do we find the Liberal Democrats? As usual, they are on the bandwagon of opportunism. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) can sigh and moan, but it is true. Not just in the House of Commons, but on the stump in the European elections, they are showing cynical opportunism. As we heard from their spokesman today, they are coming up not with a solution, but with constant, carping criticism, undermining the morale of our servicemen and women.

Paul Keetch: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have visited Iraq since the start of conflict and the troops there have told me that they have been very grateful to Liberal Democrats and others who have been putting their side of the argument? May I remind him that the Liberal Democrats pointed out that our troops did not have the right kit and the right boots when the right hon. Gentleman's Government sent them to war to fight?

George Foulkes: When the hon. Gentleman was talking to those troops, he did not understand the irony that they were using to make their point. They are a cleverer lot than he gives them credit for. He and the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman have taken a very interestingly different line on that from time to time.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Foulkes: No, I am not going to give way.
	In contrast to the Liberal Democrats, our troops are helping not only to keep the peace in difficult circumstances, but with reconstruction and rehabilitation. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) did not even mention or recognise that, let alone give them credit for it; nor did he come up with any constructive and practical suggestion for the way forward. Indeed, he spoke like the lawyer he is, to put a straitjacket on our troops. If it is necessary to reinforce our forces for effectiveness, for their safety or to extend their tasks, the Government should do so.
	At least the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not call for immediate withdrawal. I suppose that we should be thankful for that small thing, although someincluding my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, given his time in office, ought to know a great deal bettercall for that immediate withdrawal. That is the height of irresponsibility. It would result in a bloody, all-out civil war, in which thousands of people would die, and the danger of a return to dictatorship.

Peter Kilfoyle: It is rare for me to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but my understanding of what he said is that he hoped that after elections there would be a withdrawal, not an immediate withdrawal after 30 June.

George Foulkes: I bow to my hon. Friend's correction. Perhaps I shall have to correct my remarks in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I shall check the record. There are some who are calling for an immediate withdrawal, which would certainly result in bloody civil war, as I said. That, incidentally, is not just my view. It is also the view of leaders of socialist parties whom I met at the Socialist International executive in Budapest on Friday, and not all of them supported the intervention by Britain, the United States and the other countries that supported us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said in an intervention, we must stay the course. That was a telling phrase. Following the assassination of the leader of the governing council, it is even more vital that we reaffirm our intention to do so.
	I conclude where I started. One of the world's worst dictators has gone. Some people have saidas did the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)that there are many other dictators. At least there is now one less. Because we cannot get rid of them all does not mean that we should not get rid of one of them. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
	Now, Iraq is moving, albeit hampered by terrorists and by the faint-hearted, towards democracy and prosperity. That is something of which the House and our Government should be proud. I support the Government in their determination to see it through.

Jenny Tonge: The previous speech was most enjoyable, in the usual Dr. Pangloss style of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We heard, as usual, that all is for the best in the best of all possible situations.
	It is important for the House to examine the reasons we were given a year ago for going to war with Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, we were told, were ready within 45 minutes to destroy us. Dossiers were published to support that view. In my family, where there are three scientistsalbeit two medics and a geologistthose dossiers were looked at carefully and thought to be extremely faulty and very bad science indeed. I wonder whether there are any scientists at all in the Cabinet if they could accept the sort of rubbish that was peddled at the time.
	Nevertheless, many in the House accepted those dossiers and the reason given. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If there were, where are they now? We do not hear the Government speculate very much on where they might have gone. The whole situation in Iraq has been such a shambles over the past 12 months; if the Government were so sure that there were weapons of mass destruction, it is extremely worrying that we have no hint of where those weapons might be now.
	We were also told, as Dr. Pangloss reminded us, that human rights were being abused and that Saddam Hussein was a monster. I entirely agree. That means it is even more important that our campaign should have been conducted in the most impeccable way, and that there should have been faultless behaviour by the Americans and ourselves in Iraq. The reverse has been true.

Harry Barnes: Can the hon. Lady imagine what would have occurred if photographs of abuse in prisons, which was far worse under Saddam Hussein, had come out? If such photographs had been available during Saddam Hussein's regime, they would have been used as part of the humanitarian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but I am getting a little tired of hon. Members saying that the human rights abuses allegedly being committed by the Americans, even if not by our troops, are somehow better or not so bad as those committed by Saddam Hussein. Abuses of human rights cannot be graded. The abuse of human rights is an absolute. We no longer have any moral authority. I was reminded of that last week while we were tackling the Sudanese Foreign Minister on the abuse of human rights in Darfur when I noticed faint smiles on the faces of the Sudanese delegates. It is difficult to claim the moral high ground when such things have been going on in Iraq.
	We were also told that somehow Iraq had a connection with world terror and Osama bin Laden, but since the invasion of Iraq world terrorism has increased. The supporters of Osama bin Laden, who had no previous connection with that country, are now in there. We in Britain are more at threat than we were a year ago when we went to war.

Tam Dalyell: Osama bin Laden did have a contact with Iraq, and the contact was that on two separate occasions he made serious attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein. That was the relationship.

Jenny Tonge: I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman would make that very intervention. He has said that many times.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady will perhaps appreciate the intent of my intervention when I say that the question of the moral authority of our troops under the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence is entirely different from that of Saddam Hussein and his regime, in that here we investigate the allegations and act on them when they are proved. I challenge the hon. Lady to say that Saddam Hussein would have done the same.

Angus Robertson: Why did the abuses happen in the first place?

Jenny Tonge: As the hon. Gentleman says, why did they happen in the first place? Who gave the authority for American soldiers to abuse soldiers in this way? Was it just because the same thing was happening in Guantanamo bay? Why were the British Government so weak and feeble in trying to get our citizens out of Gantanamo bay? It rather suggests that they are colluding in American treatment of prisoners of war.
	Liberal Democrats have been accused of being opportunist, but on the doorstep people say that they have been told lies about weapons of mass destruction by the Government, that at the very least Britain has colluded with human rights abuses in Iraq, and that we have endangered the safety of British citizens by increasing terrorism. The Government should be ashamed of their record in the past year, and if they have no shame, I am ashamed on their behalftruly ashamed.
	The Prime Minister could save his soul. We have heard very little about the middle east peace process, which is mentioned in the motion. The Prime Minister could save his soul and his Government by breaking with George Bush and Ariel Sharon and by using every means to put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories of Palestine that it has occupied since 1967. That is a key issue that has not been addressed this afternoon.
	If the Minister were to tell us that the offered withdrawal from Gaza is a step in the right direction, I would merely laugh in his face given what has been going on during the last week with the bulldozing of houses, sometimes with people in thema scorched-earth policyand the killing of leaders in that area before withdrawal is even considered.
	When the Minister replies, cannot he acknowledge the visit of the delegation from the Palestinian assembly, which is in Britain this week, and accept once and for all that the road to peace in Iraq and the wider middle east, as well as the road to solving the threat of terrorism in this world, still lies through Jerusalem?

David Winnick: The sadistic abuses in Iraq revealed in the past week or so have undoubtedly set back hearts and minds in that country and throughout the region. We must thoroughly investigate how such acts could take place in the very prison where Saddam had his torturers and murderers. I find it difficult to believe that those who carried out the abuses and worse did so without the knowledge of senior officials and that they acted on their own initiative.
	In order to ensure that people in the middle east, especially in Iraq, understand how seriously the issue is taken in the United States, the best course of action would be for the Secretary of State for Defence and his deputy to resign. That would show that when America says that it is sorry, it really means that it is sorry, and that the person in charge takes responsibility.

NOTHING

NOTHING

Chris Bryant: If my hon. Friend means that Donald Rumsfeld should resign, I agree with him, but he did not make that clear and seemed to suggest that the British Secretary of State for Defence should resign. Does he distinguish between systematic abuse by American soldiers, which is abhorrent to those Labour Members who, like me, have been members of Amnesty International for many years, and the incidents involving British soldiers, which may have been one-offs?

David Winnick: No comparison is possible between what the Americans did and the allegations against British soldiers, which should be investigated. I hope that I made it clear that the United States Defence Secretary and his deputy should go, and go quickly.
	I do not regret supporting the destruction of Saddam's regime. The hon. Member for Stratford-on- Avon (Mr. Maples) described that regime as unpleasant; it was not only unpleasant but outright murderous, and should have been dealt with much earlier. I was in the House when the controversy occurred over whether military action should be taken to liberate Kuwait. Some of my hon. Friends opposed that action, and I am not sure what the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would have done had she been in the House. In 1991, I hoped that Iraq would be liberated, but I accepted that that was not possible because the coalition would have fallen apart. Had such action been possible, it would have been justified.
	Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, took the lead in urging action to stop the Serbian crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. He was right, but some Labour Membersperhaps me, for that matterwere a little slow, and the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to praise the way in which the former Liberal Democrat leader understood the need to deal with the crimes that were being committed. Action was taken rather late in the day, but if Milosevic and his cronies were guilty, how much worse were the crimes of Saddam? If one supported what was done in Kosovosome hon. Members did nothow can one object to action to destroy the regime in Iraq, which was far worse, far more criminal and far more murderous?

Paul Keetch: Twelve months ago, Liberal Democrat Members did not rule out military action against Iraq in all circumstances. We said that it was not the right time and that the inspections conducted by Hans Blix should be allowed more timewhat is more, Hans Blix also believes that he should have been given more time.

David Winnick: The Saddam regime had from 1991 onwards to comply. If Security Council members, including this country, had acted more effectively, we would not have got into the position that we reached. I made it clear at the time that, apart from weapons of mass destructionHans Blix was by no means satisfied that there were none, and the hon. Gentleman agrees with thaton the ground of human rights alone, I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that we were right in the action that we took.
	I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park said about Palestine. I recently had a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. The actions of the Israelis over the past few days were deplorable. We have seen on television Palestinians forced out of their homes, those homes bulldozed and the people forced to live in tents. The more the United Kingdom speaks out against Sharon's actions, the better things will be. I am pleased that more than 100,000 people in Israel demonstrated their distaste and dislike of and opposition to Sharon's policies. I support a sovereign Palestinian state, which should come about as quickly as possible. I made my views clear, as the hon. Lady knows because she listened to me, only a few days ago in Westminster Hall.
	Mistakes were made after the liberation of Iraq and far more should have been done to provide basic facilities. I believe that there was a slowness and that we did not explain our intentions to the people to Iraq. That did not help. I agree that the United Nations should be given a far more active political role in preparing the future of that country. The deadline of 30 June must remain but it should be only the first step towards an Iraqi Government, who need far more legitimacy than the current governing council.
	I supported the action last year and, as I have said, I make no apology for the way in which I voted in March 2003. However, I believe that there is a danger that the longer the occupation lasts the more suspicion will grow in Iraq and the region that the United States in particular wishes to stay for a long time. There is a danger that the occupation will be perceived as indefinite and that every excuse will be found to continue a military occupation. People in Iraq who are not terrorists or insurgents and said that it was right to take action to destroy Saddam's regime as well as those in the wider middle east will conclude that it was not simply a question of ousting Saddam. All sorts of conspiratorial theories will be presented that the action was a means of turning Iraq into a satellite of the United States or the coalition. There is great political danger in an indefinite occupation of Iraq.
	Once the 30 June deadline is reached and the governing council is given more legitimacy, I hope that every step will be taken to ensure that the Iraqi Government's political role is given far greater emphasis than is currently intended. In so far as it is possible, I hope that more countries, especially Muslim countries, will be included in the transitional period. We all want the same outcome: a sovereign Iraq, a country that is not occupied and an elected, democratic Government with legitimacy. Those are the objectives for which my colleagues and I voted last year. That is why I emphasise that we must be very careful, not only because of the current terrorism, to ensure that the occupation has a limit and that the people of Iraq can rule themselves without outside occupation or interference.

John Barrett: As this nightmare unfolds on our televisions and we watch women, men, children, civilians and contractors dying daily, it is worth remembering again why the House sent in the troops. At least we had a vote on the issue, as the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, but the picture that was painted at the time was that weapons of mass destruction existed and presented a threat. Do the Governmentdoes anyonestill believe that that is true? What happened to the 1,400 people who constituted the Iraq survey group? If they had found anything of note, the Government would be trumpeting their report. Why the silence? The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned one roundis that it?
	When those who opposed the war questioned the Prime Minister, the reply was often, At least we have captured Saddam Hussein, as though that alone justified military action. The Government cannot have it both ways. We are in a coalition, and I must remind the Government that it was US soldiers who captured Saddam. If the US forces' success on that occasion is something that we want to share, we must also accept that they, as part of the coalition force, have been accused of shameful actions, and that some of them have perpetrated almost indescribable acts involving prisoners in Iraq. We cannot say that that has nothing to do with us, because it has been done in the name of the coalition.
	We were given four reasons for going to war: the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the non-compliance with UN resolutions; the fight against terror; the humanitarian crisis; and Saddam's reign of terror. People say, At least Saddam's reign of terror is over, but if that vote on weapons of mass destruction were to be repeated today, now that we know that the 45-minute threat related only to battlefield weapons and that the two trucks that were supposedly mobile laboratories were in fact sold to Iraq by us for meteorological purposes, there is no way that we would go to war based on the dodgy dossiers, the dodgy evidence, the Prime Minister's word or anything similar, because trust in the Government has gone.
	The argument moved on to the fight against terror as a reason for going to war, but the terrorists have been fuelled by recent events. Those who wanted to portray the west as inhuman now have all the recruiting material they need. They have materialincluding photos and videosto last them a long time. Donald Rumsfeld sends a shiver down my spine; what must he do to those in Iraq?
	Hon. Members mentioned the reconstruction plan and said that the humanitarian grounds were reason enough for going to war in Iraq, but Iraq is not yet the relatively wealthy country that it should be. Before any trouble, it had a standard of living similar to that of Spain or Portugal, but it has not yet returned to that position. The end of Saddam's reign of terror has been cited as the only success, but the toppling of a dictator would never have won international support as a reason for going to war. If that was the reason that we went to war, we should be at war constantly.
	What next? There must be either an exit strategy or more troops. The present situation is a nightmare. If the troops were pulled out tomorrow, the country could implode. Any terrorists not in Iraq would make their way there, and Osama bin Laden would probably be among the first. Civil war could break out. The Kurds might see an opportunity to establish their own homeland. Those who are suffering most would continue to suffer. Would sending more troops alleviate that?
	The only way forward is to involve other countries through the UN. If that does not happen, we and the USA will have to send more troops just to protect those who are already there. I have already mentioned the consequences of pulling the troops out. We are left between a rock and a hard place. We must get other Muslim and Arab nations brought in on their terms, so that they can play a part in the drive for peace. We and the American Government are part of the problem as well as part of the solution. We cannot move the troops out today because that would make things worse, but if they stay indefinitely it will inflame an already dire situation.
	How many more people must die on each side before this comes to an end? We need to hear what the Government plan to do next. We heard earlier from the Secretary of State that we cannot estimate the number of casualties, but on this day, the anniversary of the battle of Monte Cassino, at which it is estimated that 200,000 people died, surely we can estimate the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.

Harry Barnes: I think that we should get away from two simplistic approaches to developments in Iraq and what needs to be done. One comes from those who supported the invasion, but who excuse or explain most of what has occurred since as not a great problem, or claim that it is outweighed by the severity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and say therefore that what has taken place is basically okay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) expressed such a view. We need to get away from and beyond that.
	At the other extreme, there are those who opposed the war, who might be in danger of damning almost everything that has happened since, or of using what Wittgenstein called a one-sided diet of examples all the time about what is wrong in terms of humanitarian and other considerations, and who might say, I told you so. It is as though things have not developed or moved. In both those camps, there needs to be shift and movement.
	I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), because no one has been more strident than he has in defending the right to invade Iraq. He strongly emphasised his deep concerns over what has been revealed about humanitarian problemsnot just those on the American side of the coalition, which need to be investigated fully and properly and acted on and which arise from Amnesty and Red Cross reports. He also stressed that there had been problems, that things had not gone right all along and that we were not always clear in connection with those. I think that there are those on both sides who recognise that we are in a different situation once the attack has taken place, and it is very important that we respond to changing developments.
	I opposed the war, but I am keen to see the reconstruction of Iraq and its development into a free society with civic institutions and free provision. In that I associate myselfI can do a little bit in certain areaswith the new Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions, which is a free trade union movement that works in difficult circumstances. It is challenging many trade unions in the Arab world, many of which are state controlled and, to some extent, replicas of what existed under the Ba'athist regime. The federation is not all that acceptable within Arab territories, and there is a still a remnant of Ba'athist trade unionism, which existed in Iraq and needs to be confronted.
	The federation does not do too well in dealing with the Americans, because the Americans are interested in the redevelopment of Iraq in terms of their own vision, so their capital interests in that connection are to the fore. Trade unions are therefore a difficulty if they are going to be free, because they represent the workers who want to get into such things.
	The federation challenges various people, but it has great difficulties because of mass unemployment and other problems. Just as things were developing nicely, with the International Labour Organisation involved in the United Nations office in Baghdad, the bombing took place last August and all that was lost. All the federation's connections became difficult. Those who are working in that area should say to the Government and those who supported the invasion that some of us who opposed it and would defend that position nevertheless might have something to offer and to say about these changes.
	I am the most unlikely person in the world to vilify the armed forces in southern Iraq. I did my national service in Basra back in 195556. It was a peaceful period, but I understand what life is like there and the problems, even if there has been a great transformation since. At least I understand the heat of the midday sun that the forces will face. I hope that the Government recognise that some of us are not just taking what seem to be predictable positions.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is making some telling points. Does he believe that there is not as big a difference between the two sides on this matter as many people would assume? Most people want British troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible. The division between us is on how soon that can happen.

Harry Barnes: There are differences in the way in which the argument is put forward in different camps. One problem is point-scoring, one side against the other, which means that extreme positions are taken. The fact that some of us opposed what was taking place from a certain analysis and a certain background also means that we shall not just surrender to the position of those who supported the invasion. We want people to realise how tough the circumstances are and that there are some things that we are unlikely readily and easily to get. United Nations' involvement would be tremendous, but without it there might still be things that we could argue for and encourage the Government to do, as long as people realise that we are also in the game.
	The point is often made that Britain is not to blame and that the problem rests with the Americans. What has been revealed about abuse falls very much within the American camp, but that does not absolve us. The Americans are our allies. We joined them. What are we working towards with them? If they were on the edgethey seemed to be at one time, although they seem now to pulling backof further invasions of Syria, Iran and Korea, the clear lesson is that they are not fit people for us to be associated with, at least under the current regime, when it comes to entering any other military adventure anywhere in the world.
	The special relationship between the UK and America should give us an opportunity to speak about what has happened so far as Rumsfeld and others are concerned. If The New Yorker is correct to say that Rumsfeld ordered a loosening of the rules under which military personnel could squeeze information out of detainees, we should react to that. If, as The New York Times says, rough treatment is par for the course in American prisons and part of the culture there, that too should influence us seriously. We should direct our minds to engaging in such serious matters without continually listening to point-scoring in the Chamber from one side against another. We should try to work together while still recognising the limits to that and the fact that we may speak from different positions.

Peter Kilfoyle: The road to peace was mentioned several times earlier in the debate. The road to peace in Iraq seems to be a journey through a vale of tears that will go on for some time. It is one of those journeys where we know where it began but do not know where it will finish. When we embarked on the war, which I still consider to have been illegal and immoral, the then Chief of the Defence Staff expressed his misgivings about embarking on such an operation without a clear exit strategy.
	That remains the case to this day.
	Before those with a different view on the war criticise me, I put on the record that, like everybody else, I have nothing but admiration for the forces on the ground and the exemplary way in which they have performed their task. They did not ask to go to Iraq: they have been placed there, and they will do their job in their usual professional way. Our dilemma concerns our destination and what it will mean for the soldiers on the ground, as well as the wider issues.
	I despair whenever I hear the Government present their case. We heard it again in this debate and in Defence questions. Every time a Government spokesman refers to Iraq, we hear the same circumlocutions, euphemisms, diversions and inaccuracies that present a wholly misleading case. One of my favourite, pithy aphorisms is from Noam Chomsky, who said that whoever captures the language captures the argument. It is important to look at the language that is used. For example, we have heard much about sovereignty, but what does that actually mean? If we hand over sovereignty on 30 June, can we do so in any real sense if the new authority will not have any control over its own security forces? Indeed, the official Opposition would be up in arms if it were suggested that the United Kingdom did not have true sovereignty over its own defence and foreign policies because it was part of Europe. We can at least be certain that whatever takes over in Iraq on 30 June will not be sovereign in any way that we would recognise.
	Another word that is bandied about is contractors, which has become an all-embracing term for the privatisation of war. For example, let us take the terrible murder of Nick Berg. He was a television aerial and dish erector and had gone to Iraq to make a few quid. He could legitimately be described as a contractor, but many of the other contractors are nothing more than mercenaries. They are former special service operatives performing highly specialised, highly paid and highly dangerous jobs. They accept the money for the job, and they are not in the same bracket as those who are trying to restore the civilian infrastructure.
	Let us not forget that we went into this shambles in Iraq because of an unholy alliance between the Government and Conservative Front Benchers. Today, we heard an exchange in which the shadow Foreign Secretary gave the Secretary of State for Defence the latest news on weapons of mass destruction and shells with sarin gas. By definition, a shell is a battlefield weapon, but they have again altered the meaning of WMD so that it covers just about anything. We should not forget that the reasons for war given in this House revolved around the pivotal issue that there were weapons of mass destruction, but we have still failed to identify or provide any as evidence.

Paul Keetch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the alleged WMD containing sarin nerve gas wasaccording to General Kimmittfound several days ago? It was a very small shell, it was ineffective and whoever rigged the round to explode appears not to have known that it contained a nerve agent. That is hardly the kind of weapon that we were warned about in the run-up to war.

Peter Kilfoyle: No, it is not, but many of us argued not only about the definition of weapons of mass destruction, but the likelihood that any would be found anywhere in Iraq, given that we had been bombing them for so many years and had taken out any worthwhile defence and military facility. That is not to say, I told you soit is a matter of record.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what the Foreign Secretary said about the fact that Saddam had a choice? He could either give up his weapons of mass destruction or be deposed. The logical conclusion is that if he had given up his weapons of mass destruction we would not have deposed him and he would still be there under the sufferance of the British Government. In those circumstances, how can it possibly be argued that WMD were our principal reason for going to war?

Peter Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Like the Foreign Secretary, he is a lawyer, and he is used to the contortions of that sort of legalistic argument, which does not hold any logic for reasonable people. More importantly, as is evidenced by poll after poll, it does not convince the people of this country, who are less confused than the Government appear to be.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) commented on the number of Iraqi dead. When I tabled questions about that to the Ministry of Defence, I received a rather brusque answer. We all get used to being told, in effect, to mind our own business. I was given the same dismissive response when I asked about liaisons with non-governmental organisations that attempt to gauge civilian casualties in such conflicts. I was left with the clear impression that the issue is an irrelevancy. I do not consider the death of anybody, civilian or soldier, an irrelevancy to be marked by that sort of answer.
	As it stands, the perception of our own efforts in Iraq is inextricably linked with the impressions of the American military. I do not think for one moment that our soldiers are guilty of the systematic and systemic abuse that seems to be the case with American troops, but that is not how it will seem to people on the ground. We should dispense once and for all with the myth that people who point to such abuses are endangering our troops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, the logic of that is that we should all keep quiet. People who knew about the holocaust kept quiet, and it went on regardless. When abuse takes place, it is one's duty as a citizen, an individual and an elected representative to speak out about itit cannot be hidden.
	Where do we go from here, given that we are in this mess and have to deal with this shambles? I am not one of those who believe, as was suggested earlier, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had called for an immediate withdrawalhe did not. His argument was clear and unequivocal, and I tend to agree with it. There should be a clear timetable for withdrawal. As the Government are so keen on targets, I do not see why we could not set a target for our withdrawal by saying that it would take place after the election of a Government in January.
	Alongside that, we should take a firm view on engaging further troops in the field. As The Independent remarked today, putting troops in because commanders on the ground deem it necessary in order to conduct necessary operations within their current remit or to effect their withdrawal is different from an American commander asking for more troops to make up for shortfalls elsewhere. If the Americans want more troops, let them put them in. I hope to heaven that that is not needed, but we should not widen the remit of our soldiers' existing commitments in Iraq.
	If we are to get any sense of where we need to go in this horrible situation in which we find ourselves, the most important prerequisite is for the Government to come out of denial and recognise that what they did was wrong. They might have done it for the best of reasonstheir case involves a lot of post facto rationalisation which does not convince many in this House, and is not convincing the British peoplebut there is nothing wrong with saying, We may have gone down a certain road with the best of intentions, but let's recognise that we got it wrong and need to go in a different direction. As long as they maintain the myths about weapons of mass destructionas do Conservative Front Benchersand keep trying to justify the unjustifiable, they will only find themselves deeper and deeper in the morass.

Dari Taylor: My contribution will refer to the opinions of young soldiers who have just returned from Basra and to my beliefs about insurgents, militias and radical clerics, whether from outside or inside Iraq.
	Last week, some of my daughter's former school friends returned from Basra on leave. I was privy to their conversations but did not take part as I was keen to listen to what the young people were saying. They were pleased to be home and said that although life in Basra was difficult, things had got significantly better during their tour of duty. They described the difficulties, but equally they talked about the other side of thingsthey said that they were winning hearts and minds and felt more and more involved with the ordinary, everyday life of the Basra community. They were known and welcomed by local people.
	I found the conversation interesting because I rarely hear such comments either in the press or in the House. One of those young people was 21 and the other was 23; they showed no fear about returning to Iraq and said that they would be pleased to go back after their six-week leave. They made it clear that the children and young people would be waiting for them to take part in tournaments, football matches and all sorts of everyday community activities.
	The British armed forces are exceptional in their involvement in the development of stable communities, with the Iraqis determining how that activity will be undertaken. Although I have not been to Iraq I have visited Bosnia, where ordinary folk told us again and again, Please keep your armed forces here, they have given many of us the belief that our grandchildren will be able to grow up in our country.
	In their conversation with my daughter, those young people were making it clear that they are developing peaceful relationships with ordinary people that will endure. They would appreciate it if that were recognised. Of course, they are not involved with the prison service; they are based in Basra and Umm Qasr, working with ordinary people. I was pleased to hear them say that they were looking forward to their return to Iraq.
	It is not just young people who are making such statements. I have a close colleague in the Territorial Army, who is somewhat older than those young people. He, too, has served in Iraq, in a medical team, and he told me that on the whole the coalition forces and their activities were warmly welcomed. Although, obviously, there were inordinate difficulties, Britain was seen as a fair nation; when things went wrong they were investigated and appropriate action was taken. People did not talk about the creation of a sovereign state, but it was clear to him that Britain's involvement was helping them to believe that one day the rule of law would be established and their lives would be secure.
	I have always been involved with the British armed forces and their deployment, so it saddens me to hear so much criticism yet so few references to the value that we give in so many countries in so many parts of the world. Of course, I do not underestimate the grave consequences of acts perpetrated by a few who, whether in communities or in prisons, carry out indecent and disgraceful acts. That is not just a dereliction of duty; those people bring disgrace to the armed forces and to our country. However, those disgusting and unauthorised acts are perpetrated by only a few and it is my belief that, ultimately, they will not undermine the ability of our coalition troops to createas they did in the Balkansan open, law-abiding society.
	I also want to refer to the acts of the insurgents, some of whom have connections with al-Qaeda, radical Shi'a clerics or Islamist extremists. They are determined to scupper the introduction of the rule of law or an open democracy, because they know that, in such a society, they would have to pitch in and fight for the support of ordinary folk, and they would not get that support. Al-Sadr and his Jaish-al-Mahdi militia are a fierce fighting force, as everyone with military connections is aware.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady refers to the rule of law, but is not the coalition's case for the importance of the rule of law undermined when the United States fails to respect the Geneva conventions in Guantanamo bay and when we hear reports that the abuse of prisoners may not have been isolated acts but part of a wider culture with links high in the US Administration?

Dari Taylor: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not prepared to say that such behaviour is part of the way of life or conduct of the British armed forces. I am dismayed by those serious allegations against the Americans.
	Our forces know that al-Sadr and his militia are laying in wait for them and will ambush them. People outside understand that, but we need to say it in this place, too. Such militias will bomb our forces indiscriminately with rocket-propelled grenades. They whip up emotion and manipulate the poor to fight with them and die for Moqtada. Our very young British forces have to fight against such people and win hearts and minds in their communities. We cannot hold discussions and negotiate with those insurgents; they will not even talk to moderate Shi'a clerics. They want only to deliver their own agendafor them that is the only agenda.
	Our armed forces are young, but they are extremely professional and competent and I hope that everyone in the House will make that statement again and again. I hope that on 30 June we shall see the establishment of an Iraqi governing force. I hope that reconstruction will take place with United Nations involvement. However, it is important to remind the House that we deployed a NATO force in the Balkans because the UN was unable to deliver peace in that region. When we talk about the value of the United Nations we should also acknowledge that there is no easy way to deliver peace in such countries; only a serious, careful and constructive force can deliver.
	I believe that we were right to deploy and I hope that in years to comeperhaps in only a yearwe shall see significant benefits. Our troops can see them now; let us acknowledge that fact.

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that our debates on Iraq put a terribly optimistic gloss on the situation in that countryan interpretation that is quite different from what we hear at public meetings and in discussions with groups of citizens all over our country. People are extremely worried about the situation in Iraq; they understand that things are deteriorating and becoming more violent and that insurgency is spreading to the south and will endanger our troops. Yet, in this place, the discussion is complacent, as though we are talking about a few local difficulties and if we carry on as we are everything will be all right.
	That is deeply worrying, because the situation is getting worse, and it is not all right. We need a responsible exit strategy in the interests of our troops and the people of Iraq.
	I must say that the way in which the Secretary of State for Defence dealt with the question about the failure to make any calculations concerning the number of Iraqi civilian deaths was disgraceful. As everybody who takes a responsible view of these matters knows, Iraq Body Count is trying to make such an estimate and is looking at more than one published source to try to reach an accurate figure. Its estimateit recognises that it cannot be totally accurateis that as many as 11,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, and the numbers go on rising. On top of that, 6,000 to 8,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the war, and many of them were young conscripts. More than 700 United States troops and civilian workers who worked in their support have died, as have 67 UK troops, including some civilians who were working in their support.

John Pugh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Secretary of State mischievously confused two thingsmaking an assessment of Iraqi casualties, and making an assessment of Iraqi casualties in circumstances in which British officers would be put at risk? They are two quite different things, and not doing one is not a case for not doing the other.

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. To say that we can only go in to count the casualties after we have escaped from danger is to make a joke out of a very serious matter. The truth is that, when our political leaders speak, they too often express more distress when the person killed is from our armed forces, or an ally, appearing to belittle the loss of life among Iraqi civilians. That is quite wrong and very dangerous. The failure to count the number of civilian deaths is part of that. Obviously, it is possible to see how many people went to hospital, how many people lost their lives and how many people were buried. It is possible to make estimates which, while they would not be entirely accurate, would suggest that we were taking the situation seriously.
	There is another aspect of the debate in the Chamber, but not in the country, that I find enormously worrying. In the country, there is an intense political mood and more interest in debating politics than I have seen for a very long time, but there is derision about Westminster. People are buying political books, having political discussions and attending meetings while despising what goes on in this Chamber. We in this Chamber should look at ourselves and listen more carefully to what people out in the country are saying.
	Hon. Members repeatedly say that we must not turn away from the Iraqi people and go when the job is half done. But what are the Iraqi people telling us? They are making their views clear in poll after poll conducted by responsible American organisations. I should have thought that any poll taken in Iraq would have an urban bias and would not reflect the views of the poor who are not on the phone. The polls show that, while the overwhelming majority of people are glad that Saddam Hussein has gone, they think that the situation in their daily lives is worse than it was when he was there. We should be shamed by that and take it seriously, because that is what the Iraqi people are telling us. They are also now sayingit is a change in their positionthat they want the coalition to leave immediately. That is what they say in response to polling undertaken by responsible American organisations. It is a little odd for Members of this place to say that we must behave responsibly towards the Iraqi people and stay when the people of Iraq say that they would like us to go. I do not mean that we should just walk away and leave chaos behind, but we should look for a rapid exit strategy. That is what the Iraqi people want us to do, and it is what we should do.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes): those of us who had strong views about the rush to war should not say that we have been vindicated by the mess that there is now in Iraq. We have to go forward from the situation we are in. In response to the cheap remarks from the shadow Foreign Secretary, let me say that although, as everyone knows, I was very critical of the rush to war, like the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on defence I was not against the threat of the use of force. I thought that it was necessary to threaten the use of force and to be willing to contemplate using it to back up the authority of the United Nations. However, under the doctrine of just warboth the legal teaching and the Christian teaching, which is very like Islamic teachingwe should have exhausted all other means. We did not exhaust all other means, so I was prepared to leave the Government. I said that I would leave the Government, but I was persuaded by the Prime Ministerhe pleaded with meto stay, in order to help with the reconstruction. We reached an agreement on the basis of three things.
	The first of those things was publication of the road map, and the Prime Minister used the threat of resignations to get the road map published. We now know that the process was not sincere, but the position looked more hopeful at the time. I was also promised a UN mandate for reconstruction and that we would internationalise reconstruction. I left the Government when those promises were broken. I make the point now not so that I can talk about my position, but to make the House face the reasons for our difficulties with the UN's authority in Iraq.
	The difficulties did not arise because the UN failed. When hon. Members talk of the UN failing because members of the Security Council cannot reach agreement, they distort reality. The UN Security Council is an instrument of its members and it cannot make decisions if its members will not come together and agree internationally on how to move forward.
	The UN was ready and had made preparations to take the lead in helping the Iraqi people create an interim Government, as it had helped in Afghanistan, Mozambique, East Timor and Kosovo. That is the international system for post-conflict situations. However, the United States was not willing to give the UN the authority that it normally hasas, for example, in Afghanistanin selecting the Iraqi interim Government. The UN was put in a subservient position, and the Security Council did not want another row because the UN's authority was already being diminished. The Security Council allowed the US to have another resolution, but it was told that it would not have international support on that basis.
	The lesson is that there must be a sincere commitment to giving the UN the proper authority. Then we should say that we will leave as soon as possible, and whenever a legitimate Iraqi Government ask that of us. Under the auspices of the UN, we should be replaced in Iraq by international forces who will come in under a proper mandate. The Pakistanis have made it clear that they would accept that, and the Spanish withdrew because there was not a proper UN mandate.
	We need a responsible exit strategy for the sake of the people of Iraq and for the sake of our soldiers. Instead of that strategy, what we have is vague talk about a vital role for the UN. Those words were given to us after President Bush visited Hillsborough, but meant nothing because we had a UN resolution for post-conflict Iraq that put the UN in a subservient position. Poor old Sergio Vieira de Mello went in against his better instincts to take on the role and lost his life.
	We must mean it when we say that we will give the coalition's authority away, and we must make it clear that we want to leave. The Iraqis do not believe that that is our wish. They have read the work of the Project for the New American Century and seen that, before they took office, senior figures in the Bush Administration wanted permanent bases in Iraq. The situation is serious and deteriorating and our Government are not putting forward a responsible exit strategy. If we fail to get out and the quagmire gets ever worse, we will rue the day.

Richard Younger-Ross: I have three reflections to make on the debate.
	It is helpful to consider how this all started. In the second or third debate after 11 September, I remember getting very angry because Conservative Members were then suggesting that we should perhaps attack other countries rather than just going into Afghanistan. I said at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be wrong. However, support for broadening the scope of the attacks came from more than just the odd Conservative Back Bencher. Conservatives launched a broad attack on the Government, saying that they were not doing a proper job because they were not backing Americanot fully behind Uncle Sam. They argued that we should support Uncle Sam whatever he wanted to do. If the Government made the mistake of thinking that they would easily persuade the House of the case for a war in Iraq, they did so because they were not just helped but pushed into taking that stance by the official Opposition.
	The Secretary of State for Defence spoke at length about contractors and gave a long list of all the good worksmuch good work has certainly taken placeand projects that have been completed.
	I noticed one significant omissionthe electricity supplywhich surprised me. The oil supply was not mentioned, either. I was part of the armed forces parliamentary group that visited Basra a year ago. We saw at first hand how important it was to get the electricity supply up and running. It is not simply a case of providing electricity so that people can turn on lights and watch television. Electricity is not an optional extra for Iraqis; it is an essential. The water is not necessarily safe to drink and has to be boiled, which is generally done on an electric ring. Without electricity, the Iraqis have to scavenge timber, which we saw when we were there, so that they can make a fire to boil the water so that it is safe. They were so desperate to find wood that they went to the munitions stores and emptied mortar shells out of wooden boxes and on to the ground so that they could have the wood to boil their water.
	I hope that, in his response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will remedy that omission and give us a full detailed briefing on the electricity supply. In particular, perhaps he can tell us what repairs have been undertaken, and to which power stations. The one thing that puzzled me when we were there was that no work was being done on the power stations, which were designed and constructed by the Russians. Surely we could have said to the Russians, Why don't you come and help repair the power stations? You've got the parts. It's all your technology. You can get them up and running fast.
	When we left the country, the contracts had not been let. Indeed, I do not think they were let until the end of last year. It will be interesting to know how many of the power stations are up and running. To complicate matters, the Russian design is complex. It is based on interlinked power stations and it only takes one of them to be down to have a knock-on effect on the others. So getting just one up and running is not enough. They all have to be got working to an extent to guarantee the electricity supply.
	Why was there a delay in granting those contracts? Perhaps one of our problems is that we have lost the peace and have spent a long time trying to put in the resources necessary to build the infrastructure. There is a lack of planning. Last September, we asked Ministers from the Department for International Development about the number of police who were in Iraq to help. At that time, I think we had managed to send two police officers out to help build up the police force. Even though that is now being done, the fact is that valuable time was wastedyet we wonder why we are struggling with the peace today.
	We have heard much about the abuse of prisoners. What is remarkable about the Secretary of State's remarks earlier today; about the response by the Minister of State to questions asked by myself and others last Thursday; about the Prime Minister's response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on Wednesday; and about the debate at the beginning of last week is that whenever the abuse of prisoners is raised, Ministers' reply is, We knew all about it. It's okay. We didn't need to see the report. It was all being dealt with. The questions are not simply about what is happening in the British-controlled area, but about what the Government knew about the abuses carried out by the Americans. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can categorically tell us when the Government were advised of abuses by American forces in their detention centres. When the Government became aware of those abuses, what did they do? The Minister of State said:
	We are each concerned about what the other does in those circumstances.[Official Report, 13 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 51.]
	We heard the we word from the Secretary of State: We are doing this, we are doing that, jointly, as the coalition.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a coalition is occupying Iraq and has command? There is an administrator and a British deputy administrator, both of whom apparently did or did not see, and did or did not read, the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, it is a coalition. That is why the Secretary of State used the we word. In the light of that, why did the Minister of State say that he would not respond to questions on what the British knew about the American abuses? If we knew about those and the Minister is concerned, as he stated in Hansard he was, how were those concerns expressed to the Americans? Was there a memo? Was there a telephone call in which someone said, George, what's going on? There's something wrong. Can you let us know? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will advise us on that.

Tam Dalyell: May I have this opportunity to talk quietly on one subject to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? It is about America. There are two Americas, whatever the Foreign Secretary said, and the view of one on this subject is very different from the view of the other. I spent the past 16 days not in Washington, which is a sort of cauldron, but in the middle west, in Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas, where there has been a tectonic shiftI think that that is the expressionin opinion. I do not know what information the Foreign Office is getting from its embassy in Washington, although the ambassador was one of the architects of the policy on Iraq, but there is a striking change of opinion in the middle west. It is not only the American dead who are coming back, but a massive number of those who have been wounded, either severely or not so severely, and who have possibly been saved by the skills of modern medicine, whereas in previous wars they would have died. The numbers are significant.
	There is also growing and massive discontent in the United States about those who have been sent to Iraq who are members not of the regular forces, but of the national guard. They never thought that they would see service outside Oklahoma, Nevada or wherever. Those peopleuntrainedare being sent into the blistering heat and difficult, edgy conditions. Those of us who have been in the services can imagine what it must be like, and my heart goes out to the troops.
	Much has been said about how we should stay the course. I just wonder whether the Americans will stay the course. I do not normally quote from newspapers in the House, but on the plane coming back I saw the Saturday leader in The New York Times. Under the headline America Adrift in Iraq, it states:
	Six weeks of military and political reverses seem to have left the Bush administration doing little more in Iraq than grasping at ways to make it past November's presidential election without getting American troops caught in a civil war. The lowering of the administration's expectations might be therapeutic if it produced a realistic strategy for achieving a realistic set of goals. Unfortunately, there appears to be no such strategy, only odd lurches this way and that under the pressure of day-to-day events.
	Many others in the United States are far more critical than we in Britain have seen them to be. They have watched interrogations by Senator Kennedy and Senator Carl Levin. One gets the feeling in the United States that they are not going to last the course.
	It is my candid view that we must get out as soon as possible. If I am asked by the Government Chief Whip or anyone else why I am voting for the Liberal Democrat motion, it is simply because I listened carefully to every speech in the debate.

Brian Mawhinney: It is a matter of record that I am one of only two Members who has served in Northern Ireland as a Minister for over six years. During that time, particularly when I was the Minister responsible for security, I had the opportunity to observe closely the work of the British Army, and I yield to none in my admiration for the work that they do. I saw them when they were fighting, and I saw them relating to local people who did not want them to be there.
	I say that by way of background to the two points that I want to make. I stand in this debate as someone who has become very confused. I take comfort from the fact that I am probably a pretty good representative of the people in that regard. I want to pinpoint two confusions, both of a fundamental nature, because until they are resolved it is difficult to envisage the nation gathering together around a policy.
	The first confusion is that we are now being told that we went into Iraq to get rid of a bad man. There is no debate about the fact that Saddam Hussein is a very, very, very bad man, so to the extent that that is true, there is some substance to the statement. Yet I do not ever remember a debate in the House in which we were asked, If we are going to go to war to get rid of a bad man, who votes for Saddam Hussein, and who else might we consider having a go at? My personal view is that, had there been such a debate, Robert Mugabe would have been pretty high on the list, but there was no such debate. So to be told now that what we are really doing in Iraq is getting rid of a bad man adds a layer of confusion to public opinion, but the Government do not appear to understand the confusion that they are creating.

John Pugh: Adding to the confusion, though, must be the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues. I recall the shadow Foreign Secretary saying, in effect, that if we had not taken out Saddam Hussein this year we would have had to do so another year. That did not seem to be predicated on whether he had weapons of mass destruction; it seemed to insinuate that, since he was Saddam Hussein, at some time we would invade Iraq.

Brian Mawhinney: It may well be that at some point we would have had to invade Iraq; that is not the debate. I do not have a crystal ball, and the Liberal Democrats are the last people to whom I would turn for one. I am talking about how we got where we are today, and why there is a mood of unease in my constituency and in the country more widely. None of that, and nothing that I am saying, undermines the support that my party has given to the Government on this issue. However, if the reason for going to war in Iraq is changed, without an explanation that the people can understand and identify with, the consequence is confusion.
	There is another confusion. My clear understanding is that one of the fundamental reasons for our going to Iraq is the fact that we, and the world, were threatened by weapons of mass destruction. There are many people who would like to move the discussion beyond that point, but I have to tell the House that I have not yet been able to get beyond that point. There is no debate about the fact that the Government said that weapons of mass destruction were at the heart of the policy decision, which I supported. I make no apology for doing so, and in the same circumstances, were they to be repeated, I would make the same decision. I will tell the House what was one of the key factors in my thinking.
	My Prime Minister and my Foreign SecretaryI do not mean by that that I support them, but particularly in the context of war and peace they are my Prime Minister and my Foreign Secretarytwo of the most senior Privy Councillors in the land, stood at the Dispatch Box and told me, a reasonably senior Privy Councillor, that we needed to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction. I am confused because I do not know how long I am supposed to give the Government before the argument based on weapons of mass destruction ceases to have any credibility whatever. I have put my case in careful terms because I am trying to give them as much of the benefit of the doubt as a senior Privy Councillor should give the Government in the context of war and peace.
	I have shared that view with the House because I think that I am pretty normal. I think that I am a good representative of the British people at this time. The argument about weapons of mass destruction was made, and it is now being brushed under the carpet. A new argument is being made, and people are saying, Excuse me, but that was never the basis on which we went into Iraq.
	My party supported the Government. I say again that I believe it was right to do so and, in the same circumstances, I would vote again with the Governmentand I believe that my party would. I am not trying to rewrite history; I am trying to get at why there is so much unrest and unhappiness in the country. Of course, it is in part because of the terrible attacks and the death and destruction, although I think that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) was absolutely right to point out that there is a lot of good news, which does not, as we both know, always mean newspaper news. Much is being done that is good and to the benefit of the local people, yet there is a problem.
	I say to the Government that sooner or later they are going to have to come clean with the British people. I say it in those terms because, unless and until they do, they will have great difficulty in putting together broad-based support for whatever will constitute the exit strategy: the role of British troops, coalition troops and others in an Iraq where the power has been transferred. These are serious matters, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) that, just occasionally, we in the House need to understand that if we talk in one framework and the rest of the country is talking in a different framework, almost as though we were in parallel universes, we do no service to the country and to our constituents. It is for that reason that I have tried to get to the heart of what I believe is causing a lot of the confusion in our country.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Those of us who opposed this conflict before March 2003 foresaw and foretold a number of things that were undoubtedly right. There were things that we did not prophesy.
	We foresawand we were rightthat there were no weapons of mass destruction. That did not require the gift of prophecy; there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. We foresaw that thousands of Iraqis would die and that hundreds of British and American troops would die with them. That, too, was not difficult. We foresaw, and warned, that there would be no proper planning for an evacuation of Iraq in a post-Saddam world, and for that too the gift of prophecy was not necessary.
	What none of us foresaw was the state of Iraq now, a year after the invasion. None of us foresaw that, after a year, thousands of Iraqis would be in prison with no civil liberties, no rights to a judicial process and no access to advice, and without their parents, children and families being informed of their existence in those prisons.
	We could not have foreseen that. I would not have prophesied it, because I would never have believed that it could happen during a British occupation.
	Still less did we foresee that in those prisons there would be torture and abuse on a systematic scale. We did not foresee that naked men would be dragged by leashes and chains. We did not foresee that they would be chained to doors and beds and threatened with dogs. We did not foresee that our own prisoners would be hooded. None of that we foresaw. If we had said that that would happen, we would have been regardedand I would have agreedas ranting nonsense and attempting to stop a war by grossly overstating and overestimating the dangers. Yet all of that has come to pass, and it has come to pass on our watch.
	There has been not one word of contrition in respect of what has happened on our watch. It was known to the Minister of State and to the Secretary of State for Defence for months. It was known that there were reports from the Red Cross. It was known that there was concern about the state of Abu Ghraib prison. Yet during all the accounts and the adulation of what happened in Iraq, nobody came to the House to tell Members that there was a problem that needed to be dealt with; nor has there been any explanation of the failure to do so.

Geoff Hoon: I have set out clearly and precisely when I first became aware of the Red Cross reports. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not challenging my word on that subject.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Government were aware of the matter at least as early as February, and probably as early as September last year. I have attended every single debate on the subjectmore, I think, than the Secretary of State hasand I cannot remember one single occasion when the House was made aware of the problems that were coming before the Government at the time. When we did hear an explanation, it was an extraordinary one: the documents that were provided did not contain the necessary number of words and clauses or have attached to them the necessary appendices to enable them to be treated as dossiers or reportswhatever that may mean.
	In truth, no ministerial responsibility has been seen in this House. It is a sad thing to stand here and say that. What we have seen, however, and one of the most distasteful things that have come before the House, is the use of the British Army. I genuflect to nobody in my regard for soldiers, many of whom come from my constituency. I shall always have high regard for them, but one thing that I will never do if we are criticised is enlist that regard as some sort of defence or alibi for my own failings. It is high time that Ministers understood that there is no crisis of trust in the British Army or in British troops, but that there is a profound crisis of trust in British politicians, and the permanent adulatory use of British troops to deflect that is one of the most tasteless parts of this debate.
	Of course there is, I am sorry to say, a pedigree for such behaviour. Many of us remember the occasion on which the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) stood before a Tory party conference and rolled out the motto of the SAS. It was a deeply embarrassing moment, perhaps even for his own party. However, despite its pedigree, the practice should stop. Ministers need to answer without relying on the excellence of the forces who are there to do their bidding.
	At the end of the day, responsibility is the word. The Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Prime Minister have frequently taken credit for what has been done in the name of the coalition. They have taken credit for the successes of the Americanscredit for their military successes during the course of the war and credit for the manner in which they have set up administrations when they did so. Now, we must take responsibility collectively with them, because the world outside will never understand if we do not do so.
	In free and democratic politics, there is only one way for those who lead to take responsibility. If they do as they should, the world will know that we in this House take our responsibilities seriously. That does not mean that Ministers knew, still less colluded, still less ordered, the torture of prisoners in jail. It means that they say, When it happens on my watch, I take the responsibility for what has occurred. If they do that, it will send out a signal to the rest of the world, and it will do more than anything else can to remove the increasing threat to British forces from those who believe that we are synonymous with our American counterparts. If we take that responsibility, it will remove part of the shame that, as a result of the revelations, now sits upon the Government, the shame that sits upon this House and, one must unhappily acknowledge, the shame that sits upon our people.
	Attempts are being made to relegate these events to a footnote. The mistreatment and torture of people in prison on our watch is not a footnote in history. Ministers cannot say to the House, We accept that there has been systematic torture by coalition forcesbut the water supply is getting better. Such a statement will be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

Paul Keetch: The purpose of the motion standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends is not to secure a re-run of the vote held on 18 March last year; rather, it is to urge hon. Members to focus on where we now find ourselves in Iraq and on the future. We have heard a dozen or so Back-Bench speeches on that issue, the two best coming at the end of the debate from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney).
	The continuing unrest in Iraq, which is fuelled by the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr and which we have seen in action just today, has been further inflamed by the pictures of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by United States forces and by some allegations against UK forces. There is little sign of the unrest abating. Only last week, the Secretary of State said:
	This weekend saw the most violence so far, with more than 100 engagements between violent insurgents and coalition forces.[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 21.]
	Today's debate has given the House the opportunity to reflect on the current situation in Iraq and, more important, to determine what steps should be taken next. Once again, I am glad that it has been the Liberal Democrats who, in our time, have given the House of Commons a real opportunity to discuss the matter.
	It is a sad fact that Iraq appears increasingly unstable. Liberal Democrats and Members of other parties warned a long time ago how enormously difficult it would be to restore stability to a post-war Iraq. War is a terrible business, which is why it must always be used only as a last resort. Not only does it put at risk the lives of our armed forces and innocent civilians, but it rips up the fabric of societies and breeds discontent and malice. The appalling images of abuse of Iraqis have added fuel to the fire and will add to the influx of terrorists to Iraq. In his speech of 18 March last year, the Prime Minister suggested that he wanted to break any link between Iraq and terrorism. He has certainly failed to do so. It is sadly apparent to us that Iraq is now more a home for the likes of al-Qaeda than ever it was before we went to war. Back in March last year, the Government were keen to link a potential war in Iraq with progress in the middle east peace process. It is interesting to see that their amendment today makes no reference to that.
	But we are where we are. Having chosen the course of war, our duty now is twofold. First, we must ensure that the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces, who serve with such credit and distinction in Iraq, are given the best possible protection and, secondly, we must try to offer stability, peace and sovereignty to the people of Iraq.
	We have heard some good speeches in our debate, including that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). He was right to speak about weapons of mass destruction and remind the House of the casus belli, or the reason why we went to war last year. He pointed out the stupidity of the argument advanced by the Ministry of Defence that it cannot calculate the number of civilian deaths. He said that the MOD has objected to some of his questions; my hon. Friends, too, have experience of it refusing to answer their questions. His speech contrasted sharply with that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who began by complaining about his lack of press coverage, went on to rubbish my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and Senator Edward Kennedy in the same sentence and then misrepresented the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
	We heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), one of two Conservative Back Benchers to make a contribution. He rightly said that Iraq could have been a beacon in the middle east, and could have set an example for other nations. Sadly, however, it has not done so.
	As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made an impassioned speech, and spoke about the need for peace in the middle east. She said that when she canvasses on the doorstep people talk to her about Iraq. My party has been criticised for treating Iraq as an election issue, but when I knock on doors I discover, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said, that Iraq is an issue that we are right to put before the British people; suggestions from Labour Back Benchers and even Conservative spokesmen that we should not do so in the forthcoming elections are ridiculous. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) talked about the proliferation of terrorists in Iraq.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Keetch: No, I will not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was right to talk about the body count. It is ridiculous of the Secretary of State for Defence to suggest that we are putting the lives of British forces on the line by trying to calculate how many civilians they may have killed. Such a calculation has been made in every other conflict, and to suggest that we and our hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches are endangering the lives of our servicemen and women by seeking a figure is wrong. Speaking from his experience of Iraq, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) talked about the abuse of prisoners and the difference between the attitude of the American Department of Defence and that of the MOD. We may criticise the Department of Defence for many things, but since the photographs were published it has acted speedily. Secretary Rumsfeld went to the prison last week, and he also went to Congress to show lawmakers photographs of some of the abuses. In the United States, the first courts martial have begun. I wonder, however, what happened to the fusilier who came back from Iraq last year and tried to get photographs of Iraqi abuse printed in his local Boots. We have still not heard what happened to him, and do not know whether he has been court-martialled.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood spoke about the United Nations, about which we again heard two myths: first, that we went to war to support the wonderful UN resolutions, and the British and the Americans were champions of the UN; and, secondly, that the UN had failed in its duty. In reality, however, it was not the United Nations that set the timetable for war in Iraq but the United States and Britain. To try either to blame the UN or to suggest that we were protecting its role is ridiculous. Increasing the role of the UN, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), by internationalising the political and security processes in Iraq, and trying to ensure that our forces are associated not with war but with a future peace is the best way to achieve our goals. The pictures of the abuse of Iraqis do not help us, and I found them shocking and awful. Is that what the Americans meant when they talked of shock and awe?
	In a recent newspaper article, the right hon. Member for Livingston said that the Prime Minister is in denial about Iraq. He was remarkably prescient, given the Government amendment, which is extraordinarily complacent and simply says, Don't worry, everything is all right. It would be nice if we could believe that. I respect the British forces, who continue to serve on the ground with skill and determination. As we have said, if UK commanders on the ground seek support as a force protection measure, we will give it to them. However, we owe it to them to have an exit strategy and a plan for the future, as they are putting their lives on the line. We in the House simply pay lip service to that.

Bill Rammell: We have had a constructive debate but, to be honest, I do not think that anyone has changed their view about whether it was right or wrong to go to war. Nevertheless, it is important that, whatever our view, we focus all our efforts on how we can rebuild Iraq, build on the elimination of the Saddam regime and create a stable and democratic state, as we have a legal and moral obligation to do so.
	First, however, I wish to reiterate a view shared across the House and express our deepest condolences about the death of Mr. Izz al-Din Salim, the acting president of the Iraqi governing council, and head of the Islamic Dawa party. He will, I am sure, be sorely missed.
	I should also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to our armed forces. I am confident that everyone will join me in saying that we can be immensely proud of the job that our armed forces are doing. We have all been conscious in recent weeks of the allegations of abuse by coalition forces in Iraq. The photographs of British troops that appeared in the Daily Mirror have been shown to be fakes. I welcome the fact that the Daily Mirror has admitted it was wrong to publish the photographs. However, allegations of instances of abuse remain, and are being investigated. As my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated earlier, when an allegation is made against British troops, action is taken immediately. That decision that does not need to be referred to Ministers or made by them.
	The Liberal Democrats called for the role of the United Nations to be expanded and enhanced, a view with which we fundamentally agree.

Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend moves from the treatment of prisoners, will he assure the House that the deaths in custody in the area under British administration are the subject of a thorough investigation that will be publicly reported? Does he accept that, as a coalition of forces is occupying Iraq, the joint administration in Baghdad bears some responsibility for what has happened in the American sector as well as the British sector?

Bill Rammell: It is critical that all instances of abuse, wherever they occur, are thoroughly investigated, and we are committed to doing so. I can assure my hon. Friend that instances of abuse in the British sector are being actively and thoroughly investigated at the moment.
	We fundamentally agree with the Liberal Democrats' argument about the need for a greater role for the United Nations. It is a fact, little reported at present, that there is a consensus in which the UN, the Iraqi governing council and the coalition provisional authority all agree that the UN should take a more substantive role once the occupation formally ends on 30 June. We are strongly pushing for that in the United Nations. As Kofi Annan and the Prime Minister recently made clear, we want a new Security Council resolution marking the end of the occupation and the handover to a fully sovereign Iraqi Government.

Clare Short: rose

Bill Rammell: I will give way briefly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), but there are a host of issues to which I must respond.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can it be the end of occupation when there will be an interim Government selected by the UNI accept that that is progresswithout either authority over the coalition forces, the Iraqi police and military or the right to change economic decisions that have been made? Is that really a handover and an end of occupation?

Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend is wrong. The exact arrangements for coalition forces in relation to the caretaker interim Government will be determined in the resolution, which, I believe, will be submitted to the Security Council in the near future. I hope that that provides her with reassurance.
	The discussions on the interim Government are proceeding successfully, with Mr. Brahimi indicating that its full structure and officials will be announced by the end of May. I have a problem with people who argue for a greater UN role, but then criticise the timetable for elections as being too slow.
	The UN itself and Mr. Brahimi himself have made it clear that they believe that the present electoral timetable is correct and, bluntly, the only realistic one in the present circumstances, and it is important that we go forward with that view.
	Let me turn to some of the issues raised during the debate. I was interested and intrigued to listen to the arguments of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). In summing up the debate, he made it explicitly clear that the Liberal Democrats are seeking to use the war as an electoral issue in the forthcoming elections. In that regard, I am indebted to Conservative Members for reminding me that the leader of the Liberal party recently made clear his intention not to use that issue during the forthcoming campaign. No one should be surprised at such discontinuity between different members of the Liberal Opposition.

Julian Lewis: I can confirm that the leader of the Liberal Democrats made that commitment on the Politics Show on 9 May, which only goes to show that a week is a very long time in politics, especially if one is a Liberal Democrat.

Bill Rammell: I wholly concur with that view.
	Let me turn to the views put forward in introducing the debate by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). On 18 March last year, he said that we went to war on both a threat and a promise. There has been much rewriting of history in the past year by the opponents of war[Interruption.] It is important to remember that we went to war because Saddam Hussein did not comply with resolution 1441, which gave him a last chance to disarm and comply with successive UN resolutions. It is important to remember as well that, if we had not taken that decision, Saddam would have been reinforced and reinvigorated, and whatever difficulties we face at the moment would have been significantly worse.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister give way?

Bill Rammell: No, I will not give way. [Interruption.] I am short of time, and I need to respond to a host of Members.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife went on to argue explicitly for the phased withdrawal of troops from the date of the elections in January 2005, regardless of the security situation or the wishes of the elected Iraqi Government. I do not believe that, in those circumstances, that would be the right or responsible thing to do.

Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the wishes of the British people, the majority of whom would like the withdrawal of troops now?

Bill Rammell: Of course we respond to the wishes of British people, but we also have to give a lead in this situation. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his speech was extraordinarily long on critique, but short on substantive alternatives to the argument and course that we propose at the moment. I was very mystified by his argument when he said that arrangements similar to those put in place at the end of Gulf war one were needed. I presume that he was referring to the surrender document that was agreed at that stage, but there is no comparison whatsoever between the situation now and then.

Menzies Campbell: Let me help the Minister with his mystification. I was suggesting that there should have been a resolution to authorise the use of force in the same terms as was required in Gulf war one. That would have required the coalition to report back to the Security Council, under the supervision of the Security Council.

Bill Rammell: We could have an historical debate for as long as we like, but I believe that we were right to do what we did; the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that we were wrong. However, the key point is what we do in the current circumstances, and I heard not one substantive argument from him about a substantive, alternative course of action.
	Let me now turn to the arguments of the shadow Foreign Secretary. I wholly agree with him that, if the Liberal Democrats had had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in place, murdering, terrorising and torturing his people. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) also raised the important point about the discovery of sarin artillery munitions and asked for a response in the summing-up speech, and I shall try to respond to him.
	General Kimmitt announced today that the Iraq survey group has found a 155 mm artillery round containing sarin. It was rigged as an improvised explosive device and discovered by a US convoy. The following points seem clear: it is thought to be an old munition; those who planted it may not have known what it contained; and preliminary field testing of the substance proved positive for sarin and further samples have been sent for analysis. It does not represent a new capability, but it does appear to be part of a programme declared to the UN. However, the munition should have been handed over to UNSCOM and destroyed. It therefore appears to be in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, and it, significantly, appears to back up what we have been saying all along: Saddam concealed some of his stock. That point needs to be made.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary also asked for reassurance and confirmation that all and every part of coalition detention facilities are, and will remain, open to ICRC inspection, and I can confirm that that is the case.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made an interesting contribution, and I strongly support his argument that we should not abandon Iraq now. As he argued, if we did so, that move would dismay the forces of democracy and progress in the region and give succour to extremist forces throughout the world. That is the reality of the situation that we face.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) expressed her justified concerns about allegations of abuse of prisoners by the US military. Let me be clear and let me repeat the words that the Foreign Secretary used on the issue last week. The allegations and clear evidence of abuse in the US sector are very damaging. There is no question about that, nor should there be any pretence to the contrary. We should be clear, as President Bush has asserted, that in no sense were those actions supported or connived at by the US Administration, who are as appalled by the evidence as we are. That is the important point to make, and it responds to some of my hon. Friend's concerns.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) gave a speech that was long on moral indignation, but, again, short on substantive alternatives in respect of the actions that we should take. Again, she repeated the 45-minute claim, as though that was the key issue that determined our decision to go to war. It was not: it was not mentioned once in the key debate on 18 March 2003, when we took that decision. The reason we went to war was based on Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with resolution 1441.
	The hon. Lady went on to saythis is a significant pointthat, because of the allegations of abuse, we have no moral authority in any of the arguments whatsoever, and I think that she was referring to the Government and the country as a whole. I ask her to reflect on those comments and consider whether she really means to make that point. Surely, when allegations of abuse occur, the key difference is the way in which we respond. The allegations are serious, and we deal with them in the strongest possible terms. In no sense do I want to minimise those concerns, however, by making it clear that, of course, brutality, torture and the abuse of human rights formed the very mission statement of Saddam's regime, and there was never any condemnation or investigation in those circumstances. That is the key difference, and it is why we retain moral authority in these issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a very telling contribution. He attacked caricature positions on both sides of the argument. He rightly said that we need to respond to the changing situation. He attacked those who opposed the war, who use every setback simply as a justification for their opposition and their original decision to oppose the war, but, similarly, he stressed that those of us who supported the war need to respond to the changing situation, not blithely dismiss criticism. That argument is indeed well founded.
	In reaching a conclusion, it is clear to me that the decision to go to war remains extraordinarily divisive, but those of us who supported military action did so with every bit as much integrity and conviction as those who opposed the conflict. That point is too often forgotten in the debates that we have at the moment. However, whatever view any of us took, the critically important challenge now is to secure the future of Iraq and all its people. I fundamentally believe that we are at a crucial and critical juncture.
	The attacks by insurgents will continue as we approach the end of the occupation and the transfer of power on 30 June. The attacks will continue because the insurgents do not want a free Iraq run by the Iraqis.
	Our task, with the UN and the whole international community, is to see the challenge through. We need greater UN involvementthat is what we are arguing for. We need more Iraqis to take on policing and security roleswe are advocating that. We need a continuing British troop presence, but a clear commitment that we will leave as soon as it is safe to do so. That is our commitment. Above all, we need to hold our nerve and follow through on the commitments we have made. To cut and run at this stage, as some have suggested, would be a gross betrayal of the people of Iraq. It would also, significantly, be wholly lacking in political credibility. That is why we will not do it, and why I urge hon. Members to support the amendment and oppose the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 393.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the work being done by the UK and its Coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq; regards any mistreatment of Iraqis by Coalition forces to be unacceptable; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British forces in Iraq in assisting the Iraqi people in rebuilding Iraq; applauds the work of the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, for his contribution to helping establish a sovereign Iraqi Interim Government which will assume power by 30th June; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a new Security Council resolution and deliver the wishes of the Iraqi people for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq.'.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Edward Davey: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that council tax has risen by 70 per cent. since Labour came to power and that the Budget Red Book forecasts a rise in council tax receipts next year of over 7 per cent; further notes that these rises are hitting particularly hard those on low and modest incomes because of the way council tax was designed by the last Conservative Government; is concerned that this manifest unfairness of council tax now means that the poorest 10 per cent. of people pay over four times more of their income in council tax than the richest 10 per cent; notes that the whole system of local government finance needs major reform owing to the problems caused by the dependency of councils on central government grants that produces the gearing effect whereby on average councils must raise council tax by 4 per cent. to offset a grant reduction of one per cent; believes that the Labour Government have made the bad situation they inherited from the Conservative Government even worse by their excessive reliance on ring-fencing, passporting and centrally-imposed targets and regulations; and therefore calls on the Government's Balance of Funding Review to make far-reaching proposals for reform when it reports shortly, including the introduction of a local income tax to replace council tax, the return of business rates to local authorities, reformed in line with land values, and a radical reduction in central government interference.
	The high rises in council tax and the unfairness of council tax are issues that have rightly been raised in the House many times in recent years, not least by the Liberal Democrats. Yet the size of the rises in council tax and the extent of the unfairness in the council tax system suggest that we are right to raise these issues again, and to continue raising them until something is done to deal with the problem.
	The House will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have published detailed proposals for our alternative, and those are outlined once again in our motion today. Later in my speech I will set out our alternative to the unfairness of council tax.

Annette Brooke: What would my hon. Friend say to accusations in Conservative leaflets that a local income tax will cost the average household considerably more?

Edward Davey: The problem with the Conservative leaflets, of which I have seen a few, is that they assume that the average household is earning an income of nearly 50,000, when the actual Government figures show that the average household income is nearer 22,000. That shows that the Conservatives live in a rather different world from the rest of usand, indeed, from their own constituents.
	I want today to focus on the wider context of the problem of council taxthe local government finance system in its entiretyand that is why we have worded the motion in the way that we have. It is timely to do that because just over a year ago the Government set up the balance of funding review, which was tasked with considering many crucial aspects of the whole system of funding councils. I think that it is scheduled to complete its task and report to Ministers in July and, I hope, report back to the House before the recess. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm later that that is what is planned. This debate gives Parliament a real chance to make a serious contribution to that balance of funding review before it concludes and reports back.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the intention to charge the south-east more? Will he further confirm that my constituents on the average earnings that they earn will be a lot worse off, and is not this really a rip-off tax from a spendthrift party?

Edward Davey: That was very predictable, except that I was talking not about local income tax, but about the balance of funding review. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman was not listening for a change. I gave the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) a minute ago, and he clearly was not listening even then.
	We need to start by acknowledging that the balance of funding review is dealing with some of the most complex and difficult problems in public expenditure, although its core question can be expressed quite simply, and I want to do that now. In essence, the balance of funding review is asking how much of the budget that a council spends should be raised locally and how much should be met from Government grant, and, at the extremes, whether councils should raise all their money locally or whether it should all come from Government grant. Put like that, I think that most hon. Members could readily see the arguments against 100 per cent. locally raised budgets or 100 per cent. centrally financed budgets.
	If it were all done locally, the equity problems would be huge, with poor areas being badly affected because they would be unable to raise the funds they need for vital services. Most people acknowledge the need for some central Government grant to equalise and redistribute resources to poor areas, and therefore reject 100 per cent. locally raised budgets, and my party takes that view.

Patrick McLoughlin: One tier of the council structure, parish councils and town councils, raises 100 per cent. of its spending. How would that tax be levied under a local income tax so that the people living in those parishes or towns pay for the services that they receive?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention on that point. We have examined low levels of government in other countries equivalent to town and parish councils, and they use a local income tax system. The issue is whether the Treasury can estimate the income tax base. I accept that it is impossible to estimate that figure from information currently held by the Inland Revenue, such as the personal survey of incomes, but that is because no Government have ever tried to introduce local income tax. That information is, however, available in countries where local income tax has been introduced.

Peter Pike: The previous Government had to get rid of the poll tax following the Ribble Valley by-election, and Michael Heseltine had quickly to introduce a replacement scheme, which he rightly described as seriously flawed. It is important that we allow the balance of funding review to complete its examination of the position, because unless we correctly balance national and local funding, any replacement system will have serious flaws and problems. We must not rush into a new system, only to find in five to 10 years' time that it is equally appalling, and the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) would prove to be exactly that.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. When Lord Heseltine introduced council tax, a BBC journalist asked him why he did not support local income tax. He looked at the camera and said, That is the Liberal Democrats' policy. In other words, he had no strong argument against it. [Interruption.] I watched that interview with relish.
	The point of this debate is to give us a chance to contribute to the balance of funding review. We have made submissions to the Government, who, we believe, are right to carry out the review. We also welcome the way in which they have gone about the review. They have taken a year to gather evidence, receive submissions and commission papers. For example, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy examined local income tax, which it thought was a good idea. I welcome the balance of funding review, but I do not see why the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is concerned by the debate, which is about getting the matter right.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I want to press on and make some progress.
	The balance of funding review is important to today's debate. If local councils raised none of their own finance, which is another option, it would create huge accountability problems, and local democracy would be severely undermined. If 100 per cent. of council funding came from central Government, as some hon. Members argue, it would mark the end of meaningful local democracy. If we reject the extremes of raising all funding locally or of raising all funding nationally, where should the balance lie?
	On average, a council currently raises 25 per cent. of its budget locally and gets 75 per cent. of its income from central Government. Many hon. Members believe that the balance of funding is wrong and that it must be addressed urgentlyI hope that the Government address the matter in the review. However, we do not know whether they think that the balance of funding is a major problem, and part of the review's remit is to decide whether the 75:25 split is a problem.
	The first message that I want to get over to the Government in this debate is that the balance of funding causes serious problems. The Minister should not listen to those who argue that the current balance of funding is an advantagesome Conservative Members advance that argumentor to those who argue that the problems can be fixed without altering the balance of funding. Specifically, the current balance of funding causes three serious problems that cannot be brushed aside. The first problem is the well-known gearing effect, which relates to the second problem, accountability. The third problem, which is often ignored, is the effect on the health of local democracy and local government that comes from the imbalance in funding.
	The gearing effect is perhaps the most alarming problem for council tax payers because, as the Audit Commission reported last December, it is a major contributor to some high council tax rises. At its most simple, the gearing effect means that for every 1 per cent. increase in a council's budget, on average that council must increase council tax by 4 per cent. Average council tax rises in 200304 were 12.9 per cent., but councils actually increased spending over and above what the Government said that they should spend by an average of only 1.9 per cent. However, the gearing effect translated those increases into an average council tax rise of 7.6 per cent., which completely distorted the picture. That issue directly results from the balance of funding.

Anthony Steen: The important point is not who pays 75 per cent. and who pays 25 per cent, but how much the individual paysapart from the Liberal Democrats, nobody cares how the calculation is worked out. The Liberal Democrats have increased council tax in Torbay by 10.1 per cent., but they blame everyone else. The problem is that too many laws made in this place go down to local authorities, which have to carry them out but cannot afford to do so. If we passed fewer laws here, council tax would not be so high. If the Liberal Democrats got their way, people would pay more but would not get better services, so I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Edward Davey: I am not surprised. I agree that we pass too many laws in this place and that the burdens that we place on councils are too heavy. The idea that that is the complete explanation for council tax rises, however, is nonsense. If the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) listens, he will learn that the Audit Commission, not the Liberal Democrats, blames the gearing effect, which I am discussing, for some high council tax rises.
	There are three possible solutions to the gearing effect. First, revenue raised locally could be increased by, for example, re-localising business rates, and I shall return to that approach because we favour it. A second solution is to cut local government responsibilities and centralise a major spending area such as education. We understand that No. 10 Downing street has considered that solution, but I was glad to hear reports from the Minister for Local and Regional Government that that will not happen, and I hope that he will reconfirm that the Government are not examining the centralisation of a major spending area such as education.
	A third solutiona technical change to the grant systemis touted in the Government review. Rather than grant allocations being fixed at the time of the local government grant settlement, the idea is that the allocations become variable, which happened in the 1970s and part of the 1980s. Broadly speaking, the solution works like this: if a council raises its budget by, for example, 3 per cent., its council tax should go up by only 3 per cent., and any difference required because of the gearing effect should come directly from extra central Government grants.

Andrew Turner: Higher taxes.

Edward Davey: I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen, because the proposal is not ours. The proposal has been put to the balance of funding review and I am trying to knock it down because it is a bad idea. It would allow variable increases in grant, which could dispose of the gearing problem in one move, but it would create its own problems. For a start, it would lead to huge uncertainties, which is a problem that the Conservative Government experienced when it tried to operate such a system in the early 1980s, because final grant allocations for a specific year would not be decided for months, even years.
	Above all, variable grant allocations would create perverse incentives. Much of the money for a new project or dollop of spendingindeed, any marginal increase in a council's budgetwould effectively come from central Government, which would lead to higher tax bills overall.
	Many councils would perceive an advantage in setting higher council tax as it could be argued to the electorate that that would mean extra central Government subvention of two, three, four or even five times the amount for which the council tax payer was being asked. I therefore hope that while that technical solution might appear preferable and neat, the Government will reject it. I believe that that will be the case, given the nods and shaking of heads from the Front Bench. I welcome that.

Nick Raynsford: Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony. I assure him that we considered the matter approximately a year ago and it held no attraction for, and found no support from, the balance of funding review team. He is tilting at a false windmill.

Paul Tyler: One down, two to go.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right and I am glad about it. The purpose of the debate is to try to tease out the Government's position on balance of funding. It is important for those who will vote in the June elections.
	Another problem with the imbalance of funding is that it distorts local accountability. Changes in the local council tax bill often have little or nothing to do with councillors' decisions. Of course, they do in some cases, but far too often they do not. Council tax rises are sometimes caused by factors that are completely out of the local council's control.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification and I am sure that he will reach the relevant points because he is on a voyage of discovery, not least after the Liberal Democrats won Brent, East with 100 vouchers, which have been scrapped. Does it remain Liberal Democrat policy that regional assemblies, were they established, would have tax-raising powers? Would they be in addition to the extra powers about which he is talking? If so, would not that add further distortion to the inequalities about which he is so worried?

Edward Davey: The key point is that we would begin by getting rid of the council tax. There would therefore be no council tax precept, which the Government oppose for regional assemblies. Unless and until regional assemblies were elected, there would be no question of their having tax-raising powers. Unless and until central Government funds were given to local assemblies and national income tax was cut pound for pound, there could be no question of giving income-tax-raising powers to regional assemblies.

Several hon. Members: rose

Edward Davey: I want to make some progress. I was talking about accountability in local government. I thought that I was generous in answering the question of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), which had nothing to do with that.
	I was trying to argue that small changes that have nothing to do with councillors can affect the council tax. A small change in the amount of grant from central Government can make a major difference. A small change in a council's cost base because of central Government targets could cause a major change. A small change in the demand pressure, for example, in social services could lead to a major change in council tax. Any such changes are magnified four times because of the gearing effect that we have already discussed. That means that accountability is utterly distorted.

John Hayes: I suppose that some peoplethe hon. Gentleman may be one, but he has not made that clear thus farbelieve that there should be a closer relationship between what people pay and the services that they get. That is perfectly proper. However, a local income tax would relate not to what people get, the quality of the services or their cost, but to their income. How does he square that with Liberal Democrat policy on hypothecating tax, which is mentioned many times in manifestos and elsewhere? Would we have regional taxes, local taxes and hypothecated national taxes?

Edward Davey: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his last point, but I am glad that he mentioned services and local taxes. Some people claim that local taxpayers should pay only for local services. People have in mind emptying the waste bins and clearing parks and streets. They forget that most local residents, I am pleased to say, do not use many services that local government providesfor example, social services and child protection. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that because local residents do not use child protection services, those services should not be financed? Many services fall into that category. For example, pensioners do not use the schools. Does that mean that they should not contribute to them? That is nonsense and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to put the theory to bed.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his proposals for local income tax could increase gearing in several local authorities on the ground of the need for greater equalisation because of the differences in tax take in different parts of the country? Indeed, CIPFA said that the ratios in several local authorities would be greater. Does he accept that the proposals in his document and end-of-year reorganisation fall into the precise trap into which he suggests that the proposals in the review for ending gearing through technical changes fall? People would not know how much they were paying at the end of the year.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. On the first point, CIPFA assumed that the central Government grant would remain the same as a portion of the council's budget on average. However, local income tax creates a foundation for decentralising power to cut national income tax and reduce some central Government subventions. It enables national income tax to be cut penny for penny as local income tax increases. That reduces the gearing effectthat is the experience in many other countries.
	Let me deal with the second point about the end-of-year collection mechanism, which is only one of two possible mechanisms for administering local income tax. That would enhance local accountability as people could see rebates or extra charges at the end of they year, before the local elections. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong on both counts.

Several hon. Members: rose

Edward Davey: I need to make some headway. I have given way several times and it is time for me to have a chance to get on with my speech.
	I am trying to focus on the way in which the local voter holds the council to account in any meaningful way when the council tax bill may have nothing to do with councillors' actions. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website on the balance of funding review shows that some people do not believe that accountability is a problem. They argue that the current balance of funding and the associated gearing effect enhances local accountability and they are trying to persuade Ministers not to worry about it. They believe that the gearing effect magnifies the changes to council tax and thus acts as a weapon to control council spending. They argue that all one needs is what is called marginal accountability so that marginal changes in the council's budget are properly signalled and, indeed, exaggerated through changes in a tax bill. That effect was introduced by the previous Conservative Government when they nationalised the business rate. I do not know whether it was deliberate or whether it happened by accident or coincidence, but it has greatly worsened the problem for local government.

Mark Francois: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, since its inception in the 1990s, the Liberal Democrats have run Rayleigh town council. They increased the precept by 22 per cent. this year. When they had a chance to defend their record, only a handful of councillors stood for re-election and when nominations closed last week the Conservatives took 17 of the 23 seats unopposed. There will be no marginal accountability in Rayleigh town council or any marginal seats because all the Liberal Democrats have run away. Why is that?

Edward Davey: It was wishful thinking that the hon. Gentleman would talk about marginal accountability. It is a complex notion so perhaps I should have guessed that he would not deal with it.
	Marginal accountability is dangerous nonsense. For it to work, all local government spending would have to be fixed and under easy control so that councils were genuinely responsible for the marginal changes in their budgets. Yet we know that council budgets are not like that, because so many services are demand-led and cannot be predicted. Demand pressures for services such as special educational needs and care for the elderly are massive in some areas and explain by themselves most, if not all, of some councils' tax rises. Such real-life demand pressures totally destroy the theoretical notion of marginal accountability.
	Just as damaging is the implicit assumption that councils should be held financially to account for changes to the budget only at the margins, for new services. For proper accountability, councillors and voters should ask questions about existing services and the way in which the budget is spent on them, not only on new projects.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I shall not.
	I simply ask Ministers to reflect on how they would feel if the notion of marginal accountability applied to them. I agree with the Minister that accountability can be a tricky notion to pin down. In its fullest sense, it requires voters to have large amounts of information, which, with the best will in the world, we cannot expect them to have.
	Despite those problems, I am convinced that the Layfield notion of accountabilitywhat the committee called average accountabilityis the right way forward. That approach gets closest to the committee's ideal that whoever was responsible for spending the money should also be responsible for raising it, so that that amount of money was subject to democratic control. Subject to the constraint of equalisation, that is the approach that the Liberal Democrats take. We believe that the balance of funding problem is a serious one which undermines accountability and that it can be fixed only by serious devolution of financial power.

Adrian Sanders: Is it not the case that those in high house-price areaswhere the central Government grant is related to the tax basewhich are also low-income areas will always be chasing a gap between what the Government give them and what local people can afford to pay? The council tax will always disadvantage such areas.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. That is part of the problem with the gearing effect and with the whole system of local government finance.
	When councils have to rely so much on central Government funding, it is deeply corrosive for the local democratic system. This corrosion might be seen in lower turnouts, or in the esteem in which councils are held and the status of those councils. A system that relies on central subsidy is always going to breed dependency. It feeds a political culture in which the voters, the press and the councils too often look to central Government for solutions. We need councils to take greater responsibility. We need people to go into local government, both as officers and as councillors, because they believe that they can make a significant difference to their community. We want a more powerful, vibrant local democracy that can innovate in the public services and make major long-term decisions. However, the current imbalance in funding is one of the major obstacles to that vision. Councils inevitably spend huge amounts of time analysing in detail the grant formula distributions and lobbying MPs. We have debates in the House which are effectively zero sum games. We need to end that dependency in order to move forward and to reinvigorate local government.
	There is a flipside to this argument. When so much local government money comes from central Government, central Government start to regard the grant money as their money. Ministers in all the Whitehall Departments with an interest in local government seem to have an allergic reaction to seeing grants going to local councils from their global budgets. They want to micro-manage all that money. If we are to grasp the localist agenda and stop Whitehall Ministers and civil servants second-guessing local authorities in any policy area that we care to mention, it is best that most of the money spent by councils does not come from Whitehall in the first place.

Several hon. Members: rose

Edward Davey: I will not give way.
	I have deliberately spent some time talking about why the balance of funding review is important and why it has real and serious problems to tackle. This is a key factor behind high council tax and behind the decade of above-inflation council tax rises that we have just seen. The review is critical because we need to improve accountability.
	I want to end by outlining our solutions for the balance of funding review. Let me start by describing the number of taxes that councils have. It is wrong to expect councils to rely purely on one source of revenue. That is why we advocate, in addition to reforming the local personal tax system, the denationalisation of business rates, coupled with their reform. It was a huge mistake when the Conservative Government nationalised business rates, and that decision alone has already made a difficult problem much worse. Giving councils a second source of revenue would quickly make a huge difference. After all, that was one of Labour's election promises before 1997.
	I should make it clear that, in denationalising business rates, we want to reform them too. We want to give an allowance, so that small businesses would have an allowance similar to the personal allowance in the income tax system. We want to base rateable values not on the property but on the land. That would have two big benefits for businesses. First, it would ensure that the tax base was widened, so that land that had been zoned for commercial use but had not yet been built on would be brought into the tax base, thus reducing the bills for existing small business rate payers. It would also end the perverse incentives against developing such land.
	I know that the Minister is toying with that idea. We have seen reports in the press on whether the Government are going to go ahead with it. Concern has been expressed in No. 10 Downing street and in parts of government that this reform would be controversial, but I urge the Government to grasp it for three reasons. First, with the reforms that I have outlined, I believe that the proposal could be sold to business. Secondly, there is an argument for keeping one central control over localised business rates, which would be to ensure that any rise in the business rates would be no higher than a rise in the local personal tax. That would ensure that business rates rose by no more than personal taxes and possibly, if councils wanted, by less. The third reason why denationalising business rates is important is that the voice of business could be heard again. Many businesses criticise the Tories' nationalisation of business rates because it means that they have been excluded from many of the councils' discussions on important local issues.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I shall not give way any more.
	The second part of our solution is a radical reduction in central Government interference. We may have some common ground with the Conservatives on this. We want to see ring-fencing and passporting brought to an end, and to ensure that when responsibilities are passed down to local government, they are fully funded and the money actually goes with the responsibilities. We want to see the Government's very timid agenda on freedoms and flexibilities for local councils massively expanded, so that we can reduce the level of regulation and inspection not just for a few councils but for all of them. This sort of policy would have major benefits for councils. It would restore control of their costs and flexibility over local priorities.
	Our final proposal is the most radical, the most controversial and the most well known. It is the proposal to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax. Many of the arguments on this were rehearsed on 10 February when we last debated these issues, but I want to add one major point, linking local income tax with the balance of funding review. The key issue is that if we can extend the personal tax baseand make it a fair tax baseit will be able to take more weight. If we chose a local income tax, the national tax collected by the same authoritythe Inland Revenuecould be reduced penny for penny so that the overall tax burden did not increase.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not.
	The key problem with council tax is that it cannot bear the weight that the balance of funding review would want it to do in order to get rid of the problems that I have outlined. The council tax is already an unfair tax. The idea of doubling itor of increasing it even by 10 per cent., or whatever the Conservatives' proposal of the week might bewould exaggerate the unfairness of it even more. I do not believe that council tax is the way to go. Local income tax could bear the weight because it would be based on fairness.
	The balance of funding review offers an historic opportunity for the Government to end the decades of feuding between councils and central Government over local government finance. It will give them an opportunity to decentralise financial power in our over-centralised country and to strengthen and revive local democracy. Above all, it will provide an opportunity to get rid of Britain's most unfair taxthe council tax. I hope that the Government are up to this challenge and that they listen to the voters on June 10. I commend the motion to the House.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the Government support for local government with its 30 per cent. real terms increase in grant since 1997; notes that the average increase in council tax in 200405 is the lowest for nine years; supports the Government's proposals to take action against a number of authorities which have set excessive budgets and council tax increases in 200405; and looks forward to the report of the Balance of Funding Review of how local government in England is funded which is due in summer 2004.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate this important and complex subject. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is currently the subject of our balance of funding review. I listened with great interestand, I have to say, growing incredulityto the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Rarely has a political party shot itself so convincingly not just in the foot, but in the arms, legs and head as well. I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as an ancient mariner, but I have to say that he has truly hung an albatross of enormous proportions round his party's neck in the form of its proposal for a local income tax.
	More of that anon, but first, I would like to set out some background. The hon. Gentleman's motion curiously refers to grant reduction. I am not sure where he has been for the past seven years. Under this Government, local authorities have not been facing year-on-year grant reductions. That was certainly their experience in the early and mid-1990s when the Conservatives were in power, but this Government have been significantly increasing the levels of grant paid to local authorities. The latest settlement, for 200405, involves a total formula grant of 46.1 billion, an increase of 5.5 per cent. compared with 200304.
	On top of that, specific grants take the overall increase to 7.3 per cent. That is not a one-off increase but part of a programme of sustained growth in investment in the vital public services delivered by local government. In 200405, for the second year running, all local authorities received a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis. Overall, Government funding to English local authorities is up by 30 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. That is in stark contrast to the previous four years, when year-on-year cuts were the norma 7 per cent. real-terms funding cut over the last four years of the Conservative Government.
	It is sometimes argued that the grant increases are not sufficient to match new demands that are placed on local authorities, and that they are forced to spend money on Government priorities by ring-fencing, but both concerns are being addressed. We operate a new burdens doctrine, which requires any new obligations on local government to be matched by appropriate funding from the responsible Department. Furthermore, in the recent grant settlement, we have removed ring-fencing from some 750 million of specific grants. We have thus reduced the ring-fenced grant from over 13.3 per cent. to around 11 per cent., and on current plans, ring-fencing will be less than 10 per cent. by 200506. For authorities categorised as excellent, we have gone even further by removing virtually all ring-fencing, except for those grants intended for schools.

Anthony Steen: The Minister mentioned excellent authorities. Is he aware that Torbay council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats and is very poor, had a 10.1 per cent. increase and the Government have capped it? Is he also aware that, in spite of the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the 100 rebate, which every council tax payer was going to receive if the Liberal Democrats got into office, has gone out of the window? Did he hear the hon. Gentleman mentioning the 100 rebate, which we have all been looking forward to?

Nick Raynsford: I shall return to the 100 rebate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoys that passage of my speech. Although I have to say that he is right in saying that Torbay council is not an excellent authority, his party, which was responsible for running it for a long time, was probably as responsible as the Liberal Democrats for its current position.
	As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said, it is local authorities, not the Government, that set the council tax paid by householders. As I told the House on 29 April:
	The average increase in council tax . . . this year is 5.9 per cent. [Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
	That is less than half the previous year's increase and lower than many people predicted. It is also the lowest in the past nine years.
	A large number of authorities have set lower council tax increases than they originally proposed, not least because of the Government's strong messages to local authorities to the effect that high increases were both unnecessary and unacceptable. Nevertheless, some authorities' budgets and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers.
	The Government made clear their intention to take action against those authorities whose budget requirements they consider excessive. People who are troubled by the fear of large council tax increasesI am thinking particularly of pensioners living on fixed incomeswill appreciate that this Government have taken action to protect council tax payers from unnecessarily large increases. They will be aware of, and perhaps shocked by, the attitude of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who described this action as absurd during the debate on 29 April, at column 1025 of the Official Report. Indeed, I believe he owes council tax payers throughout the country an explanation as to why it is apparently not absurd for a Liberal Democrat council to impose a 29 per cent. council tax increase, while it is absurd for the Government to take action to protect council tax payers from such an increase.
	The Liberal Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, too, for their councils have an unenviable record of introducing the largest increases in council tax. On average, in a year when Labour councils kept their increases down to 4.7 per cent., Liberal Democrat councils showed average increases of 6 per cent., and Liberal Democrat Shepway district council headed the list of the biggest increases, at 29 per cent.an interesting warning to electors who are thinking about which way to cast their vote in June.

Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell the House what the average increase in council tax over the past five years has been in councils controlled by different political parties? He will find that the Conservatives have presided over the highest average annual council tax increases over the past five years, and Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils have had roughly the same increasesabout 6.9 per cent. Will he put that on the record?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot, off the top of my head, give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the last five years, but I can tell him that last year the Conservatives had the highest tax increases of 16 per cent., and Liberal Democrat and Labour councils had increases of around 10 per cent.
	This year, the Government said that they expected councils to budget for low single-figure increases. Only Labour councils delivered, with an average increase of 4.7 per cent. Conservative councils averaged 5.4 per cent., and Liberal Democrat councils 6 per cent.the highest increases of any of the three parties this year.
	Rather than trying to pass the blame elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman ought to be talking to his party's councillors and telling them to get a grip, although I appreciate that that is a concept largely unfamiliar to Liberal Democrats. If he did, it would have an influence on one of the other issues raised in the motion, although he did not refer to it, which is the so-called Treasury forecast of next year's council tax rise. As I have frequently explained to hon. Members, that figure is based on average increases in past years, so the fact that there is a large figure this year reflects the very large council tax increases last year. The figure is not, repeat not, an estimate of increased costs, or a target, or the Government's view of what would constitute an acceptable rise in council tax.
	The best way to get the figure down, of course, is to get average council tax down. That is where the Liberal Democrats have the greatest opportunity, because they have the largest increases in council tax this year.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has made a number of sensible remarks about the Liberal Democrats, but is he really saying that the Treasury can forecast what is going to happen next year only by reference to what happened last year?

Nick Raynsford: As I was saying to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, this is not actually a forecast. It is based on the trends over the past three years. Therefore, if there is a large increase in the previous year, as was the case, that is reflected in the figure. I have explained that repeatedly to the House.
	I want to continue by referring to the balance of funding review, and it is probably helpful if I start by providing a little background to it.

David Taylor: Let me declare an interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, whose review this is. Is the Minister about to point out the Liberals' suggestion that about 3p on local income tax should be sufficient to fund necessary public services, when the range suggested in the review is between 3.2p and 6.5p? Does that not suggest illiteracy on a grand scale?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right about those figures, but we have set up the review and it is taking evidence from various players, including CIPFA. We have been pleased with the detailed and thoughtful submissions that it has made, but this is not CIPFA's review. My hon. Friend is right about the figures ranging between 3.2p and 6.5p, which is rather at variance with what the Liberal Democrats say in public.

Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that that CIPFA review has an average figure of 3.75 per cent., which is also our average figure? CIPFA has 3. 8 per cent. as the average. [Interruption.] Yes it does. I have that in the report, if the Minister needs it. Will he also confirm that the range that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned relates to keeping the same grant system, which includes a council tax base within it, which would be absurd? Will the Minister therefore accept, as CIPFA makes clear in its report, that that is a first best guess, not a proper analysis?

Nick Raynsford: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who finds this difficult, I shall quote the CIPFA report. He will see in paragraph viii on page ii of the introduction and summary that a local income tax
	substituting for the Council Tax in England in 2003/04, might have resulted in areas precepts ranging between 3.2 p and 6.5 p on the existing personal rates of income tax.
	Those are CIPFA's figures. Will he withdraw his remarks and apologise for attacking my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) for giving correct figures from the CIPFA report?
	Let me also put to the hon. Gentleman something that he might think about before I give way to him again. Those remarks relate to 200304. When updated, the figures will probably increase above even those levels.

Edward Davey: If the Minister had read on, he would have told us that that paragraph says:
	This assumes broadly similar grant calculations relating to formula spending shares. However, the taxbase relating to personal incomes, upon which the above range of precepts is based, is distributed differently to the banded property values used for Council Tax purposes.
	In other words, the point I was making is that the grant system would change under local income tax, but that was not actually being measured.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is digging an even deeper hole, and I must counsel him not to pursue that point. I shall come later to some interesting comments taken from his website about the CIPFA report. For now, however, let me tell him that the passage that he has cited in fact highlights one of the problems implicit in his proposals, which is that the regional yield of a local income tax would be much higher in London and the south-east, so disproportionate increases in taxation would be likely there unless the grant distribution was changed. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to change that distribution, which would involve a significant change in the distribution of resources.

David Drew: Part of the problem with local income tax, as with the poll tax, is non-payment, and one assumes that people would be very clever in trying to avoid tax. One of the biggest difficulties is that any assumption of tax take must build in losses that might result if people chose not to pay or were able not to pay. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, to which I shall come in a moment. I should like first to discuss the purposes of the review before turning to the Liberal Democrat proposals.
	As our 2001 White Paper Strong Local LeadershipQuality Public Services recognised, many local authorities are concerned about the balance of funding and the proportion of local spending financed from central as against local sources. Nationalisation of the business rate in 1990 shifted the balance of funding so that the proportion raised locally was reduced from about 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. National taxes, including the business rate, now account for about 75 per cent. of local government revenue. Although the average proportion raised locally is about 25 per cent., the figure varies widely across England. For example, in Newham, one of the more deprived parts of London, it is about 11 per cent., whereas in Chiltern, a more affluent area in the south-east, the figure is at the upper end, at around 60 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was absolutely right to highlight the fact that in many deprived areas, because the wealth of an area is more varied in terms of income tax receipts than in terms of property valuations, the problem would intensify, and those areas would require even more Government subsidy if a local income tax came in. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton did not understand my hon. Friend's sensible point.
	In general, deprived areas with high needs and a low council tax base receive much more central grant than more affluent ones. The equalisation of needs and resources aims to ensure that all areas receive sufficient resources to deliver services to acceptable standards. Whatever their individual balance of funding, however, many councils argue that they cannot be properly accountable to their taxpayers if they have to rely heavily on central grant funding. They also criticise the impact of the balance of funding on gearing, which was a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. In the 2001 White Paper, the Government stated their view that there was no quick or easy way of securing a major shift in the balance of funding. We did, however, agree to set up a high-level working group to look at all aspects of the issue and to consider reform options. The balance of funding review started work in April 2003, and it aims to report in the summer. Our target is July, and I hope that, before the House rises for the recess we can report to the House on the options that the review sets out. I chair the review's steering group, which comprises representatives of local governmentseveral from the Local Government Associationcentral Government, business, the unions and other experts. The review group has met several times. It has discussed the principles of a successful local government finance system, held a consultation and commissioned independent research, all of which is publicly available. It has examined a number of possible reform options.
	The review is looking at four main reform options, which were suggested in response to public consultation: re-localisation of business rates; introduction of a local income tax; reform of council tax; and a mixed option of smaller taxes or charges. I should emphasise that the fact that the review is hearing evidence on those different options is not an indication that the Government favour any one of them.
	I will start with council tax. Many consultation responses said that there were serious problems with council tax, but most suggested that it should be reformed rather than abolished. As recent work by the New Policy Institute points out, the tax has been widely accepted until recently. Almost all countries have a local tax on domestic property. Council tax has advantages: it is well established and relatively easy to understand, its yield is predictable, and it is easy to collect, as houses do not move. Indeed in 200203 local authorities in England collected more than 96 per cent of the council tax due within the financial year.
	Of course, one major change is already planned. Under the Local Government Act 2003, there is a statutory requirement for a revaluation of domestic property in 2007, based on 2005 property values. Revaluation is not designed to raise more tax overall; the 2001 local government White Paper made it clear that its overall impact will be neutral. As the New Policy Institute showed, however, revaluation will have different effects across the country in line with house price rises, and we will consider carefully how best to manage that. One option would be the introduction of regional banding.
	We will consider the case for change to the existing bands, although we would need carefully to examine the impact of any changes. As the NPI made clear, improvements can also be made to council tax benefit, which makes an important contribution to the financial security of many people on low incomes but does not reach as many people as it should because of relatively low take-up. There is real scope for improving take-up, and my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions are making changes to address that.

Edward Davey: May I return the Minister to the point on revaluation? He criticised local income tax by arguing that there would be a larger local income tax base in such regions as London and the south-east. Does he think that his comparison with the council tax base would change after revaluation? Does he admit that many households in London and the south-east will see large increases in their council tax bills as a result of revaluation, particularly those in London who live in band C properties?

Nick Raynsford: There are two separate issues there. I have made it clear that we accept that there will be variations, depending on the relative increases in house prices since 1991. It is completely unrealistic to go on indefinitely with a tax system based on 1991 values, so revaluation must come. That is why we are considering the possibility of regional banding as one way to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.
	The issue that I was highlighting is a different matter, and the hon. Gentleman may not fully have understood that. There is a wider gap between the highest and lowest levels of people's incomes, as assessed for income tax, than there is between property values, and that would create a different issue if a local income tax were introduced. I shall not push the point further since the penny has, I hope, now dropped for the hon. Gentleman.
	Re-localisation of the business ratesa return to the pre-1990 systemis not something that the Government have favoured, but there is strong demand for it from many in local government. Most consultation responses from councils argued that re-localisation would help to resolve the balance of funding problem and encourage better partnerships with local businesses. The business community has stated, however, that it would strongly oppose re-localisation. There are also major disparities between areas in their business rate yield, so equalisation would be needed, which would reduce the link between resources raised and what would be available locally.
	The review's discussion of business rates threw up another issue. The LGA presentation made the interesting point that when business rates were nationalised, they met about 29 per cent. of local government funding, whereas they now pay for only 22 per cent. That is because rises in the business rates multiplier are capped by law at the level of inflation. Some may argue that it is not fair that business contributions to local funding are capped while domestic taxpayers' council tax bills are not. Is there, then, a case for reconsidering how the cap is set? Well, there are two sides to the story. Business organisations have warned that any changes to the cap would be very sensitive and could damage the UK business tax picture and perhaps endanger businesses' comparative advantage internationally. The balance of funding review is looking carefully at the issue, considering the pros and cons of any changes.
	Next I shall say a word about local income tax. The review consultation showed support in some quarters for that, or at least for considering the case for it, as most people admit that the proposal is inherently complex and needs much more work. CIPFA, which presented a paper to the review, highlighted a number of difficult issues, such as set-up costs, costs to business and the treatment of investment income. It would not be an easy option. It is technically complex and challenging, with much of the devil in the detail.

Matthew Green: The Minister clearly has quotes from the CIPFA report in front of him. Early on, on page 3 I think, CIPFA lists some advantages and disadvantages of the local income tax. Perhaps the Minister would like to read out the four main advantages cited.

Nick Raynsford: No, because I should then have to read out the six disadvantages that follow. The hon. Gentleman can no doubt consult the report for himself.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has clearly not taken to heart the lesson of complexity. Let us compare his blithe assurances with CIPFA's more measured views.
	I take as my evidence the hon. Gentleman's website, which I assume is an authoritative source for his views. Under the question How quickly could a local income tax be introduced? he states confidently:
	Within two years maximum. As it is using an existing system, the only major delays would be consultation on details and getting legislation through parliament.
	Well, that is pretty clear. So let us see what the expertsCIPFAsay.
	The legislative requirements might be completed within two or three years . . . Then appropriate guidance and support would need to be given to taxpayers and employers. A roll of local taxpayers would need to be collated. Most previous observers concluded that the implementation of a LIT would take five years to effect. Despite the advance made in the technology . . . the preparations required would be no less elaborate and consequently the proper implementation might well take five years to complete. There would be considerable risk in forcing the pace.
	So there we have it. Seven to eight years and do not rush it, says CIPFA; Two years and it would be easy, say the Liberal Democrats. I know whose judgment I trust.
	After that not very encouraging start, let us look at the Liberal Democrats' specific proposals. They leave a great deal to be desired and would, I fear, lead to disruptive and complicated changes to the tax system without providing the much trumpeted benefits. First, the proposals would do little to improve the flexibility available to local authorities. As authorities in poor and deprived areas would be able to collect less income tax than the richest areas, the proposals would mean that the poorer authorities would become more heavily dependent on grant. There would be less flexibility, and a worse gearing effect, for those authorities, than at present.
	Secondly, the proposals would involve substantial costs that are not mentioned by the Liberal Democrats. They plan to combine their local income tax proposal with an increase in the personal allowance to 5,000, but taking into account this year's increase, that would cost an extra 1.5 billion. Of course, we know that the Lib Dems are not very good with figures. Their back-of-the-envelope approach to local government finance usually collapses the moment that it is subject to any serious scrutiny. Even the simplest of their pledges prove problematic.
	We all recall the Lib Dems' promises last year of 100 off the council tax, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) reminded us of it earlier. We were assured that they had done their figures and could deliver that benefit. The voters of Brent, East were lured into voting Lib Dem with the overt promise of that bonus. But six months later it has vanished. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) has huffed and puffed about reviews and reconsideration, and when asked recently on Today whether people would not be receiving the 100 they had been promised, he replied as follows. I quote from the verbatim transcript:
	well, what we are (nervous chuckle) what we are pledging to people is a local income tax.
	So there we have it: the promised 100 has been withdrawn. Even though the leader of their party made that admission a week ago, his message does not appear to have got through to individual Lib Dem MPs, at least one of whose websites today continues to hold out the promise of a 100 refund under an Axe the Tax headline. It is no wonder that the leader of their party gave a nervous chuckle. Not only is his party in a shambles, but his proposals would have severe and, in many cases, inequitable consequences. They would impose substantial additional tax burdens on hard-working families, especially those with two or more earners, including those doing vital public service jobs.
	At the same time, as the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton demonstrated when he was questioned on The Westminster Hour a week ago about investment income, the back-of-the-envelope Lib Dem proposals would open up huge loopholes, allowing wealthy company directors and others living on unearned income to avoid making any contribution to local servicesso much for the supposed fairness of their proposals. The whole issue of investment income would not be covered by their PAYE system, and that would be an obvious incentive for evasion.
	Finally, the proposals they have made have weaknesses that they do not consider.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister belongs to the supposed party of fairness and justice. Is it right that under the present council tax proposals an elderly couple should spend 11 per cent. of their income on council tax when under the LIT proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), they would pay 4 per cent.? Is that just or fair?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said earlier, he would know that I highlighted the contribution to that situation of councilsincluding many Lib Dem councilsthat have pushed up their council tax to an unreasonably high level. I also highlighted the scope for trying to ensure that those who should receive council tax benefits do so. Some of the examples that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in that category. Some 1 million people are probably paying more than they should because they are not getting their benefit entitlement. We want to tackle that problem, and we are doing so, but it does not mask the fact that his party proposes a wholly inequitable tax system that would create a massive loophole, enabling some of the richest people in the country to evade any contribution to local services. It is nonsense, and the Lib Dems know it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Nick Raynsford: I must make some progress.
	The proposals have weaknesses that the Lib Dems have not considered. They have two ideas for how the tax would be collected. One is to collect it during the year through tax codes, and the other is to collect it at a standard rate across the country, and then to settle up with the individual taxpayer to cover what they should have paid through an end-year adjustment.
	The first proposal would impose substantial additional burdens on employers, who would need to deal with local income tax rates for every local authority in which their employees lived. The website of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton even suggests that employers would also have to take account of the precepts from the 9,000 parish councils. Can hon. Members imagine the administrative chaos and confusion of taking into account precepts from 404 local authorities and 9,000 parish councils? I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake and that he did not mean that. I cannot believe that he would be so unwise as to make such a suggestion. The process of having to account separately for the different amounts of local income tax that employers were subtracting from their employees' wages would impose serious administrative burdens. The more councils with separate precepts, the more complicated and intractable that burden would be.

Parmjit Dhanda: The Lib Dem proposals would not only involve collecting money through the PAYE system. Part of the saving is meant to come from doing away with the existing property-based tax, but they would still need to take tax on second properties. Therefore, they would not make the savings they predict by reducing that layer of bureaucracy.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an appropriate point. The need for a system to value every property in the country for the application of the site value tax that is proposed in cases in which owners were not liable for local income tax would make it impossible to make any administrative savings, as the Lib Dems implied would be possible by reducing the work of the Valuation Office Agency.
	I do not believe that the Lib Dems have even considered the burden on business in their costings for the local income tax. I have seen no evidence of them having made any allowance for the additional costit would probably be some 100 millionto business that it would entail.
	The second option of an end-year adjustment would be an odd compromise, satisfying no one. It would be a local income tax in which, most of the time, the bill paid had nothing to do with the rate set by one's local authority. How would such a system promote local accountability and flexibility, and how would it aid the taxpayer in understanding how much money their council was asking for or spending on services? In addition, given that the mechanics of the tax system mean that under or over-payments would not be fully settled for months or years, that approach would be doubly complex and unpredictable both for individual taxpayers, who could be presented with unwelcome retrospective demands, and for local authorities and the Inland Revenue.

David Wright: Under that system, what would happen in communities that were reliant on one or two big employers if one went under before the end of a tax year? How would local councils collect their cash?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the unpredictability of depending on a tax that is not predictableas council tax isas a main source of revenue. The closure of a major employer in an area would result in a significant reduction in income tax revenue, but it would not affect the council tax yield because those who had lost their jobs would be entitled to council tax benefit.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I must make some progress.
	I particularly enjoyedas, I think, will the Housewhat the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton says on his website about the proposal for end-year adjustments:
	if your local authority has set a rate of
	local income tax
	lower than the national average, then you will get a rebate. If your authority has set a rate higher than the average, then you pay a little extra.
	We should note the selective use of the word little. He does not say, You will get a little discount; nor does he say, as he should, You will pay a little more unless you are unwise enough to live in a Liberal Democrat area where you will pay a lot more because they charge a lot more.
	The final significant option for reform put forward during the public consultation was for a range of smaller taxes or charges. The Local Government Association has been keen to explore that option, and it presented a useful paper at the steering group meeting on 27 April. It includes a wide range of possibilities, including localising existing taxes such as vehicle excise duty or stamp duty on property transfers, or introducing new taxes such as land value taxes, tourist taxes and more charges for local services. The steering group accepted that that is not a panacea, not least because most of the options would not raise sufficient revenue to make significant changes to the balance of funding. It has agreed to look more closely at some of the options, although it has ruled several out. The balance of funding review has just finished hearing presentations on the individual reform options. The next step at our meeting at the end of May will be to start to pull the threads together and to consider what the report will say.
	These are important issues. Many Members will remember the consequences of the previous Administration's rushed reform, which gave us not only the disaster of the poll tax, but the hiking of VAT to 17.5 per cent. That lesson of past failure is one good reason why we are adopting a cautious and considered approach, not a knee-jerk response based on slogans. It is clear to the Government that many people, whether council tax payers on fixed incomes or those working in local government who would like a more transparent funding system, have serious concerns about many aspects of local government finance.
	The Government are clear that there are no easy fixes or quick wins and that we need to analyse the options carefully. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that we must take a measured approach. We will not hold out false promises, as do the Liberal Democrats, to the effect that reform is easy and solutions are painless. Axe the Tax must be one of the most mindless slogans ever put forward.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton may fancy himself as the Arnold Schwarzenegger of south-west London, but it is a bogus prospectus. The Liberal Democrats are not a low-tax partytheir councils are increasing council tax by more than any other party's. Their councillors do not want to cut council tax, but at the same time as they are busy increasing the burden, their Members of Parliament try to pretend that there is a quick and easy solution that can magically deliver lower tax bills. That is simply not credible. As I said before, they are no better than snake oil salesmen peddling quack remedies which would, if taken, leave the patient worse not better. Their motion deserves to be rejected with contempt.

Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the House some advice. As the Liberal Democrats' motion has been totally and utterly demolished by the Government, is it possible for them to withdraw it so that we can all go home and not listen to any more?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; we will continue the debate.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) makes a tempting suggestion.
	In rising to speak against the motion, I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	This is my first outing on the local government finance ticket, and it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I listened carefully to the Minister, who gave us an interesting walk through the balance of funding review. I think that we can take it from his speech that the Government have formally ruled out local income tax as part of the review; otherwise, he would have quite a few words to eat. He said that he expects to make an announcement before the recess. I think that he mentioned a debate, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a guarantee that we will have a debate in Government time before the recess.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Although I am new to the subject, I found his speech rather odd, because he did not say much at all about local income tax. I wonder whether that was due to the fact that next to him was the brooding presence of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on finance. His speech was a bit like a lecture on the principles of local government finance, and I was taken back to a university lecture hall. I have to tell him that one does not need to try to make this topic boring and impenetrable. I thought that any minute we were going to hear about neo-endogenous growth theory, but we did not quite get to that.
	Given that my Sunday papers told me that a leadership election is now under way in the Labour party, I was impressed by the number of Labour Members who stayed in the Chamber, as I thought that they might be in the Corridors being canvassed or canvassing. It was good to see them staying. [Interruption.] It is all trueI read in my newspaper that the Chancellor is getting his dream Cabinet ready, and thought that the Minister, who has been knocking on the door for so long, would certainly be making a guest appearance in that dream Cabinet. We will have to wait and see.
	The debate is a good opportunity to shed some light on a subject that is normally kept in the darkofficial Liberal Democrat policy. I know that many other Members are waiting to speak, so I will restrict myself to three points. First, in recent years the council tax has risen far too far and far too quickly. That has caused real anger and real pain. Every year under this Government, council tax has gone up by at least three times the rate of inflation. Every year, the Minister comes here and talks in his reasonable way about a generous settlement, yet every year we have these significant council tax increases. In England, council tax levels are up by 70 per cent. for a band D property since 1997. In 1997, the average bill was 689now, it is 1,167. Council tax receipts are up from 11 billion to almost 20 billion. That has happened pretty much across the countrythe Minister cannot point to authorities that have been immune. The Prime Minister promised us no excessive rises in council tax, yet that is precisely what we have had, year in, year out.
	That brings me to my second point: why has that damaging and painful increase taken place? It is possible to identify three separate causes, all of which, interestingly, can to a large extent be laid at the door of central Government. First are the additional and largely unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. My own local authority, West Oxfordshire, has calculated that complying with just two of thosecomprehensive performance assessments and best valueadds 14 to each council tax bill, yet it is hard to find anyone who has a good word to say about them or thinks they have altered policy or practice in a meaningful way.
	Next are the unfunded liabilities. To be fair to the Minister, some of those include worthwhile goals. A classic example would be the targets for waste recycling. We all want those to be met, but where is the money to make that possible? Let us consider the list. Council leaders have to comply with the Licensing Act 2003, the Care Standards Act 2000, the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Once they have finished doing that, they can try the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, a range of transport Acts, and requirements to develop plans on everything from litter to landlords.
	After that, councils have to pay the Criminal Records Bureau, bed-blocking fines, higher national insurance contributions, pension liabilities, landfill tax and, of course, higher fuel duties. Next, they have to meet EU environmental directives, extra travel concessions, e-government targets and the cost of asylum and all that it entails.

Adrian Sanders: Do not forget audit.

David Cameron: Time is limited and I have probably left out many things. I am trying to give a sense of the enormous range of burdens that councils are expected to meet without extra funding. They must be starting to feel like Elton John's hairdresser: each year, they are asked to do more and more with less and less.

Neil Turner: The hon. Gentleman read out an interesting list. What is Conservative policy on all those measures? Would the Conservatives scrap all those local authority responsibilities, or would they give the authorities extra money to pay for them?

David Cameron: That is a reasonable question[Hon. Members: What is the answer.] The first thing to do is to stop making things worse. We have to stop adding burdens to local councils without giving them the funding. We could do one or two things straight away to improve the situation. I have already mentioned comprehensive performance assessments and best value; my constituents are paying an extra 14 for those two bits of red tape, which everyone says are worth nothing.
	The third cause, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, is the Government's obsession with two nouns that they have turned into verbs: to ring-fence and to passport throughI hope you can see that I am trying to get the hang of the jargon, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman said, the more that one ring-fences and the more one insists that a certain amount of money is passported through, the more one restricts local freedom of manoeuvre and the more likely it is that any increase in local spending will lead to a significant increase in taxes. Combined with the gearing effect of local government finance, that has led to the huge increases. As the hon. Gentleman said, a 1 per cent. increase in spending typically means a 4 per cent. increase in bills. Add all that togetherthe burdens, the legislation, the unfunded liabilities, the plans and the restrictionsand the rest, as they say, is history. Tax rises of 70 per cent: nobody was warned, but everyone paysit has been the biggest stealth tax of them all.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman made a key point when he referred to the range of measures that he feels have been imposed on local government. Which of those would he remove?

David Cameron: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite heard what I said. I said that the measures included many worthwhile objectives, but we must try to have honest government. We should tell people what we plan to introduce and how much it will cost, and provide the funding for it. The Prime Minister said in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood for election that there would be no excessive council tax increases, yet that list of measuresmany of them worth whilewas bound to lead to large council tax increases. The Government have a problem with stealth taxes. The biggest stealth tax of all is council tax. That is the cause of the problem.

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and look forward to many further interesting debates. He has mentioned his local authority, which originally proposed a council tax increase in excess of 30 per cent. yet has now managed to get it down to low single figures. Would he like to reflect on why that happened? Was it because the Government said that we would get tough if authorities went for unreasonably large increases? I do not think the reduction had much to do with the legislation to which my hon. Friends have referred.

David Cameron: I reflect often on that point and I think Labour Members might like to reflect on it, too. In West Oxfordshire, council tax is 63. I suspect that Labour Membersor at least their constituentsgo to bed at night dreaming of council tax of 63. The reason the council considered increasing the tax from 60 to 80, which is still a good 60 short of the average figure, was the waste recycling issue. A new waste recycling contract had been signed to meet the Government's very worthwhile targets, and the cost of that alone means that the council will have serious liabilities this year, for which it has not been funded. However, council tax of 63 in West Oxfordshire, compared with the average of 140 for a band D property in a shire district, is staggeringly good value. The council is of course Conservative controlled, and has been for several years.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems of gearing, which all local authorities facesome to a greater extent than others. To deal with that problem, local authorities will, ultimately, have the right to raise a larger amount of their resources locally. What is current Conservative thinking about how that could be achieved, bearing in mind especially the fact that the Conservative party was responsible for two measures that gave rise to the current situationthe nationalisation of business rates and the increase in VAT to keep poll taxes down?

David Cameron: Like the Government, we are holding a balance of funding review. All parties are considering the subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was all about the fact that we had to consider such things. There is common ground on both sides of the House. We all think that local authorities need to be able to raise a greater proportion of what they spend, but there are different ways of addressing thatsome of them are covered by the balance of funding review but some go beyond it. We are committed to looking into the matter.

Edward Davey: rose

David Cameron: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before I deal with local income tax in slightly more detail than he did.

Edward Davey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. It is generous of him to admit that I was making a serious contribution to the balance of funding review and putting forward some ideas. Will he now put forward some ideas from the Conservatives?

David Cameron: When I read the Order Paper, I thought it said that this was a Liberal Democrat Opposition day, so I thought that it would be chiefly about Liberal Democrat policy. I do not think that we have had a proper airing of local income tax. The Minister had a pretty good stab at it, but I thought I would say a few words about it, too.

Anthony Steen: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. He is doing a first-class job and we look forward to the destruction of the Liberal Democrats in the next part of his speech.
	The problem is not just the amount of council tax, but how councils deal with Government requests to reduce it. Is my hon. Friend aware of what has happened in Torbay, where a by-election for a council seat is to be held on Thursday? The first cut to its 130 million budget has involved a reduction in the number of public lavatories available to tourists all over the bay.

David Cameron: Like me, my hon. Friend probably has a copy of the Liberal Democrats' little yellow book. I recommend it if one wants to see even greater nonsenses than that.
	Before I come on to local income tax, I cannot go on without mentioning the commitment to 100 off every council tax bill and the mystery of what happened to that. I have the leaflet from Brent, East in which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is pictured holding a very attractive cheque for 100. I am not sure what happened to the cheque. Perhaps we have been paid it or it did not arrive in the post. If the council tax had gone down, he would not need it any more. However, the most likely explanation is that the Liberal Democrats decided that, because they won that by-election, they would not need the cheque any more.
	Local income tax is no more credible than the 100 bribe. It is a workable soundbite, but that is as far as it goes. That is why we did not hear any detail today. The Liberals have taken two things that sound very good. They have taken the word localwe all want to be localand the phrase income tax, because they want to sound fair. They have put the two together but, as soon as one considers the detail, it is clear that the result is neither fair nor local. Liberal Democrats do not care about the detail; they want to be able to say, Axe the tax. That is what this is all about.

Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: I was warned that the hon. Gentleman has great expertise in local government finance, so I give way to him with some trepidation.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but he need not worry; I just wish to be helpful in pointing out where the 100 may have gone. The website of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is a useful source of information. It claims that the 1.7 billion allocated from the proposed top rate of income tax for those earning 100,000 would not be an additional source of local government tax, but would go to keeping the rate of local income tax down to 3.75 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) suggested, the Liberal Democrats realised that their estimates were towards the top end of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's estimates and have had to put the money that would have previously constituted a 100 saving into keeping the rate down. They have had to make the 100 vanish in that process.

David Cameron: As well as being a lecturer on the subject, the hon. Gentleman is a detective. The hunting of the snark is over; he has found out what happened to the 100. However, I warn him not to spend too much time looking at Liberal Democrat websites. All sorts of things could follow from that.
	Let me deal with some of the arguments that the Liberal Democrats are not considering in enough detail. The first point relates to the effect that a local income tax would have on working families. We all know such people. We meet them while canvassing and in our surgeries. They work hard while not earning more than average incomes and are struggling to get on to the housing ladder and to build a better future for themselves. A couple with someone on male average earnings and another on female average earnings would have to pay 630 more than the average council taxan increase of 65 per cent.
	I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will ask about a house that contains just one average earner. Just as I do in Witney, he will find many couples in Kingston in their 20s and 30s who are struggling to get on to the housing ladder or who are making big mortgage payments because of house prices. If they were at or just below or above average income levels, they would be hit very hard. He simply has not thought that through. I predict that, in the local election campaign that is under way, the Liberal Democrats will not talk about that at all.

Edward Davey: What would be the gross income of a household with two adults on average earnings?

David Cameron: Of course, it is well over 40,000. However, the hon. Gentleman has not published his figures showing the breakdown district by district for local income tax. We have done the work for him and, if one takes the current council tax rate, one finds that the rate in Kingston would be 5.2 per cent.

Edward Davey: Nonsense.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman thinks it is nonsense, but I expect that our leaflets will be going out shortly in Kingston and we want to get the figure right. If he does not think that our figure is right, he should publish his own. If he does not, we will be forced to use the figure of 5.2 per cent. and I offer it to Labour Members, too. They should make a note.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cameron: No, I am going to make progress because many Back Benchers want to speak.
	The second point about local income tax is that it would mean a return to high marginal rates of tax. To raise the same amount as council tax this year would mean a local income tax rate of nearly 4 per cent. It would be higher in some areas, Kingston being one of them. We knowin a rare outbreak of candour a Liberal spokesman told us sothat in time there would be a regional income tax as well. So the basic rate of tax would soon be pushing 30 per cent. in some areas. The marginal rate for someone on the current top rate of tax41 per cent. now, not 40 per cent.would soon be pushing 50 per cent. A person does not have to be rich to pay the current top rate. It is paid by some school teachers, police officers, health workers, taxi drivers and many others. Are the Liberals really saying that those people should pay getting on for 50p in every 1 through income tax? Almost every hon. Member has come round to the view that high marginal rates of tax are bad for incentives and bad for the economy. Someone once said that the Liberals are the party for a better yesterday. On the evidence of their plan for a local income tax, that person was only half right: there would be nothing better about it.
	My third point about local income tax is the complexities that it would involve for councils. The tax year of many people would not marry up with the council's revenue year. Some 3 million people are self-employed and pay in arrears. There are also all the disputed income tax revenues. What would happen when the country as a whole, or a particular part of it, had a bad year and revenues fell? How on earth would councils plan their expenditure? You can bet your bottom dollar that the Liberals will not talk about that in the local election campaign.
	My fourth point is that we must consider the complexities that such a tax would mean for everyone else. Imagine a small business in London or any other big city that employs lots of different people from lots of different local authorities. Each would have a main local income tax rateall different. Each would have a precepted rate from their fire authority and town councilall different. There would be more rates from their parish, police force and, in time, their regional assemblyagain, all different.
	Companies complain to me, as they probably do to other hon. Members, that with all the tax credits and other complications, the Government have turned businesses into tax and benefit offices, but that would be a picnic compared with the complication of the local income tax. We can bet that when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton goes around Kingston and talks to businesses, he does not tell them about that either.
	My fifth point is that the local income tax does nothing to address the grant system or the problem of gearing. As other hon. Members said, it could, and will, make them far worse because some areas have higher tax bases than others. There would have to be much more equalisation and even more grants from central Government to make up for the inconsistency. That means that it could not be called a local tax.
	My final pointI can give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the Liberals will not talk about this in the local electionsis that local income tax will be paid by millions of people who are not well off. The student nurse, earning just about 10,000, who is barely able to pay rent, who perhaps lives at home or with friends, would pay the local income tax. The school leaver, starting to earn good money, but still living with parents and trying to save for a deposit for a flat, would pay local income tax. The pensioner grandmother, with some income from savings, who is living in the main family home so that she can be looked after, would pay local income tax. So there we are: it is not simple; it is complex. It is not good for the economy; it is bad for incentives. It is not local; it is just a new national tax, backed by an ever-more interfering national grant system. Above all, it is not fair.

Evan Harris: As a neighbouring MP, I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his new Front-Bench role. I want to ask him about pensioners in Oxfordshire, including those in his constituency. He talked about the two people on average earnings of more than 40,000. There will, of course, be winners and losers. We have always said that there would be, but the winners will in many cases be those on fixed incomes who earn less than 40,000. So the winners will be people in Oxfordshire and the rest of the country who are less well off. The losers will be people who are best able to afford to lose. What is the Conservative position on fairness like that?

David Cameron: As a neighbouring MP, I shall look carefully at the leaflets that the hon. Gentleman puts out in Oxfordshire, and I hope that they draw as much attention to the losers as they do to the winners. An economy like Oxfordshire's cannot go back to the high marginal rates of tax that did so much damage.
	It is clear that we need to get to grips with the situation that we face. We need a recognition that the current crisis has been caused above all by the rises in the council tax and its level, rather than its inherent nature. We need a recognition that we should strip away centrally imposed bureaucracy from local authorities.
	We need a recognition that we cannot go on asking local authorities to do more things without giving them the money. We need a recognition that the issue of gearing, and the percentage of spending that is paid for and performed locally, must be addressed. Those are the issues that we will be looking at.
	In this debate we have heard many figures. There is one, above all, that counts for Conservative Members, and that is the average band D council tax. If one looks at that, one finds that Conservative councils cost 57 less than either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils, yet they have a better record on waste collection and disposal. All the audits that the Minister has produced show Conservative councils in an excellent light. I say to Labour Members that the Labour Government caused this crisis and the Liberal Democrats have come up with entirely the wrong answer, so it falls to the Conservatives to get it right.

Neil Turner: I welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to his position. In grappling with his new-found role, he might like to go back in history a little and remember exactly what the Conservative party did to local councils when it was in government. When I was a councillor in Wigan in the 1990s, we faced cuts in the Government grant of 10 million a year, and still we were having more and more policies imposed on us by central Government. The hon. Gentleman might like to consider that before he criticises this Government. They have undoubtedly given local government more to do, but they have given it extra money to carry out those duties.
	It would be nice if we were lectured on local government by experts, but that is certainly not true of the contribution from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I was reminded of fifth-form debates, although the content was usually better at school. We should not really be surprised because the Liberal Democrat record in local government is dreadful. Of the excellent councils in the country, Labour controls Wigan plus 11 others, the Conservatives have nine and the Liberal Democrats have nul points.

Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene to nail that canard. Will he confirm that most Liberal Democrat authorities are district councils, most of which have not yet been assessed by the comprehensive performance assessment process? Will he comment on the performance of Liverpool city council? When the Liberal Democrats took it over in 1998, it had the highest council tax in the country; now, after six years of Liberal Democrat rule, it is 70th. Will he make fairer, more balanced comments, rather than just taking his lead from the Labour Whips Office?

Neil Turner: I have looked at the record put forward by the independent auditors. The CPA process says that there are no excellent Liberal Democrat councils. I am very sorry about that. The hon. Gentleman may have a problem with that, but it is his problem and he ought to sort it out.
	When we look at council tax, what do we see? For Labour councils, the average council tax paid this year is 870; for Liberal Democrat councils the figure is 971; and for Conservative councils it is 1,072. The increase this year is 4.1 per cent. for Labour, 5.4 per cent. for the Conservatives and 6 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. It is no wonder that the Liberal Democrats' record with the electorate is so lamentable. In council after council, they get elected and get controlthen the franchise falls apart, they mess it up and they get voted out. As Julius Caesar might have put it, We came, we were elected, we got found out, we were rejected.
	The problem is that the Liberal Democrats have no history of running major councils for any length of time.

Matthew Green: Liverpool.

Neil Turner: For how long did the Liberal Democrats run Liverpool councilfour, five or six years? Wigan has had more than 60 years of Labour control. That is the sort of period that I am talking about. I am sure that there are many councils that have been run by the Conservatives for a similar length of time. The Liberal Democrats have never run a major local authority for any length of time, and that is the problem.
	That problem has been made clear by the 100 rebate fiasco. In February 2003 the Liberal Democrats were offering a
	100 cut for every Council Tax bill.
	In May 2004, their leader was asked:
	So they won't be getting the hundred pounds you promised them?
	He answered, Correct. We see it and then, pouf, it vanishes. It is the Keyser Soze policy of local government finance.
	Everyone recognises that gearing is a huge problem under the present council tax system. That can be addressed only by reducing the amount that central Government pay and increasing the amount that local people pay, yet the Liberal Democrats do not propose any change in that ratiothey do not propose that extra money be paid from local income tax to replace council tax. The gearing issue would therefore not be altered, even though that was one of the main points advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The Liberal Democrats' costings are calculated on a cost-neutral basis. The difficulty they face is that changing from council tax to local income tax would not alleviate the gearing effect. In fact, it would get worse because central Government funding would increaseby 1.7 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said. That increase in Government grant would be funded from the Liberal Democrats higher rate of income tax. By changing the ratio between local and central fundingputting in more money from central Governmentthey would worsen the gearing effect.
	The story gets even worse because of the greater variations in the income tax base than in the council tax basethe property base. Let us examine the effects of council tax and local income tax in four authorities. Wigan's share of the England tax base is 0.534 per cent. under council tax, and 0.402 per cent. under local income tax; its tax base would decrease by 25 per cent. under the Liberal Democrats' proposals. Stockport has 0.575 per cent. of the tax base under council tax and 0.666 under local income tax, so its tax base increases by 16 per cent. Torridge in Devon faces the problem of the number of pensioners living there: its share of the tax base under council tax is 0.122 per cent., but 0.066 per cent. under local income tax; it would face a 46 per cent. reduction in its tax base. Kensington and Chelsea's share of the tax base would increase 125 per cent., from 0.528 per cent. under council tax to 1.19 per cent. under local income tax.
	Those four examples illustrate that much greater central Government support would be required to iron out the greater variations resulting from the change from council tax to local income tax. If central Government did not get the equalising formula right, they would face huge problems. We all know what difficulties were caused by the relatively minor changes made to the formula a couple of years ago. The Liberal Democrats would have huge difficulty explaining away the 25 per cent. reduction for my local authority and the 125 per cent. increase for Kensington and Chelsea in ensuring that the formula to redress the balance was fair.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Although he dedicated the first part of his speech to the gearing problem in local government, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) did not say that extra money would be put into the system to deal with the problem. In addition, the greater disparities in the resource base under local income tax than under council tax would make the problem of gearing worse, especially in councils with a low resource base, which would need more money from the centre.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend makes my point better than I did. I am grateful to him.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman read out an interesting set of figures about Wigan, which confirms that tax payers in Wigan would pay less under our policy than they do under council tax. He is arguing in favour of his electorate paying more.

Neil Turner: I do not accept that. We are saying that the income tax base in Wigan is less than the council tax base; therefore, unless a system of equalisation is devised, ensuring that Wigan's tax payers pay less will be extremely difficult. Our base from which to supply our needs will be 25 per cent. smaller, but our needs will not change. I am not clear about how the hon. Gentleman can argue that reducing the resource base by 25 per cent. but retaining spending at the same level will reduce the amount paid in tax. I hope that he will explain in greater detail when he winds up.
	The Liberal Democrats claim that their proposal would be fairer, as everybody would pay on the basis of need, but that is not true, as the hon. Member for Witney and the Minister for Local and Regional Government pointed out. Many people whose income is not pay-as-you-earn will not make a contribution, including individuals who receive the majority of their income from dividends. It will be difficult to ensure that contributions are made by the 3 million self-employed, and certainly not in the year when payment is requested.
	We have just heard that a cap will be set at 100,000. People on such an income will pay 5 per cent.that is a reasonable average accepted by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancyor 5,000. Millionaires, however, will pay the same amount, or 0.5 per cent. of their income. That is not fair, and it will be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to explain to Wiganers, who are good at doing their sums, why it is fair that millionaires should pay only 10 per cent. of the proportion paid by others.
	The Liberal Democrats have not taken into account the cost of raising the personal allowance to 5,000, which the Inland Revenue estimates will cost 2.4 billion. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks on Treasury matters for the Liberal Democrats, did not explain in the Budget debate where the money to meet those costs would come from. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) made an interesting point about recession. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, virtually every mine in the country, and certainly every mine in the Wigan area, was closed almost overnight. Manufacturing industry, which depended on those mines, closed down alongside them, so there was a catastrophic drop in the amount of money for our local economy. How on earth would local councils cope in such circumstances? When there is a dramatic drop in income there is an equally dramatic rise in needs, as local councils must pay for school meals and other benefits. How could Liberal Democrats overcome a recession on such a scale? Indeed, if they were elected with their policies such recessions would be likely.
	The Liberal Democrats want to reform business rates in line with land values. Howeverand this is a problem with which we will have to wrestle under the balance of funding reviewproperty rates vary dramatically. A property in Wigan will not have the same value as a similar property in Warrington, which will differ in value from a property in Manchester, which will differ in value from a property in the south-east. Yet again, the Liberal Democrat policy will be subject to equalisation. More money from central Government will have to be put into local government and the gearing rate will have to be changed.

Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of localising business rates, or is he not?

Neil Turner: I shall come to that later.
	Cliff-edge problems were another difficulty that was not mentioned. Local income tax cannot be levied in Scotland and Wales, as such revenue-raising powers are devolved. What will happen on the cliff edge dividing Cumbria and Northumberland from Scotland, or Wales from the adjacent English counties? What happens to people who work in Wales or Scotland but live in England, and vice versa? My right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Witney spoke about the costly problem of collecting revenue in two-tier authorities, which has not been addressed by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton glossed over the difficulty of collecting money in 9,000 parishes.
	The whole idea of a local income tax is crackpot policy from a tin-pot party.
	Let me address some of the problems with the council tax. All hon. Members understand that the council tax raises difficulties. It is far from perfect, having been cobbled together almost overnight to dig the Conservatives out of the poll tax hole into which they had got themselves. Gearing is a huge problem. We recognise that the 25:75 per cent. local to central Government ratio does not produce good Government. It leads to a lack of transparency, as local people see large rises in council tax but almost minimal increases in the service that they receive.
	The bands are certainly not wide enough at either the bottom or the top ends. That needs to be addressed dramatically. Certainly the three times ratio, 6/9ths to 18/9thsin other words, the ratio of the very poorest household to the very richest householdis not a way to deal properly with those differences in income. Revaluation has been mentioned already by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Of course revaluation needs to take place, but we also need to ensure that we allow local councils to revalue much more regularly than 10 year intervals. I suggest five years, so that some buoyancy is built into the council tax base.
	Hon. Members have rightly raised the problem of benefits, which we need to address. Research carried out for the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to indicate that between bands B or C up to about bands F or G, and given 100 per cent. take-up of benefits, the council tax was quite fair. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must address how we ensure that benefits are taken up on a realistic and full basis.
	Let me throw in my pennyworth to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will take on board the idea of that we might want to consider allowing people to self-assess their benefits. We could get rid of the stigma by allowing everyone to send in a self-assessment. All local authorities would then determine whether someone was entitled to council tax benefit, rather than leaving that to 60 per cent. or so of people who apply for that benefit now. In other words, everyone should apply and most would say that they are not entitled, but at least everyone could to get their forms to the local council, which would assess eligibility for benefit.
	If we address those issues and consider the balance of funding review, revaluation, the ratios and the bandings, we will be able to put local government finance on a much better footing. Clearly, we must also widen the base from a single council tax to include the other elements that are being considered in the balance of funding review. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board those issues in a realistic way in reaching his assessment, so that the council tax base is not the only way that councils raise their money.

Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on a truly outstanding contribution at his first outing in his new brief this evening. He achieved something unusual on the Floor of House: he carried both major parties with him in his argument. The only Members who seemed a little upset by his comments were Liberal Democrats, who, in his own words, seem to have missed a great opportunity this evening to put their case for local income tax. Those on both Front Benches have demolished that proposal quite superbly.
	The debate has focused on various other types of local government finance, but there are not many alternatives. There is the status quo or a rejigged version of it; a fully fledged property tax; some form of local tax, either on sales or income; or a combination of some of those. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current council tax that a good dose of adequate Government grant and reduced Government directives could not put right.
	Why has the council tax, as my hon. Friend told us earlier, gone up for a band D property by 70 per cent. since Labour came to office? Why has council tax soared by three times the rate of inflation? Why are council tax receipts up from 8.7 billion in 199798 to more than 19.7 billion in the current year? That is a massive hike of some 80 per cent.
	Such is the increase that, for the typical pensioner and pensioner couple, a third of the increase in pensions has been taken up in council tax.
	It is not just in my own constituency in Cambridgeshire that we have seen a massive increase in council tax. There have been increases across the board throughout England. The reason is primarily that the Government grant has not kept pace with mandatory service provision. As with many Government Departments, centralisation has not produced the efficiency savings and value for money that were promised and which the Government thought would be delivered.
	Who, then, is to blame for the current state of affairs? According to the Audit Commission, it is the Government who are to blame. The Audit Commission report Council Tax Increases 200304, published last December, states:
	National cost pressures taken together account for about 2.3 billion of the total increase in councils' spending of 4.3 billion. In other words slightly more than half the total increase is due to national pay and price inflation, increased national insurance and general population growth.
	The report goes on to say:
	The causes of increased spending by councils included . . . national policy priorities, such as the requirement to increase funding for schools by an amount determined by government or to meet waste recycling targets
	we have had comments on both those issues from the Floor of the House this evening. The report continues:
	Grant redistributionwhich moved grant from London and the south to the midlands and the north led to some councils putting up council tax more than others.
	In conclusion the Audit Commission states:
	We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in council tax.
	Council taxes, as we well know, have been spiralling, some would say out of control, for some years. In the past few months, the Government have belatedly decided to wield the big stick. That brings me to capping. In the Minister's recent statement on capping only a few weeks ago, he said:
	some authorities' budgets and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers.
	He repeated some of those phrases tonight. He also said in his statement:
	The Government attach great importance to local accountability and believe that first and foremost it is for local authorities to set their council tax and justify it to their electors.
	Finally, he said:
	Of course, it is not just the percentage increase in council tax that is relevant. We have first to decide whether an authority's budget requirement is excessive.[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
	There are three key statements there that I should like to test against the proposal to cap one of my own local authorities, Fenland district council. Those key statements concern, first, unreasonable burdens, secondly, local accountability and thirdly, an authority's budget requirement is excessive.
	Is the council tax in Fenland district council an unreasonable burden? One of the essential problems in the area is the low tax base. That was a point ably made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner). Some 85 per cent. of our dwellings in Fenland fall into the first three bands of council taxthat is, band A, band B and band C. The average council tax band in Fenland is band B, not band C as in the case of councils in Cambridgeshire as a whole, the English shire districts and the east of England as a whole. In terms of the average bill per dwelling, therefore, Fenland is 54 cheaper than Huntingdonshire district council. It is 63 cheaper than councils in England as a whole. It is 73 cheaper than East Cambridgeshire district council. It is 83 cheaper than the average of councils in Cambridgeshire as a whole.
	It is 132 cheaper than the English shire districts, and it is a monumental 183 a year cheaper than the neighbouring South Cambridgeshire district council.
	If one compares the average council tax bands, the differences are similar. I remind the House that in Fenland the average band is B, whereas in Cambridgeshire as a whole it is C. It is 33 cheaper in Fenland each year than in Huntingdonshire, 49 cheaper than in Cambridgeshire as a whole, and 115 cheaper than in the English shire districts.
	Where, then, is this unreasonable burden by which the Minister and the Government have set such great store? Would the Minister take some time to explain to the House what the Government mean by this unreasonable burden? Is it to be expressed in terms of the finite or actual amount that people physically have to pay in their council tax, or is it based on a percentage increase in any given year?
	We had the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney of West Oxfordshire, which had an extremely low council tax of some 63. When it sought to increase that towards the level ofthough not as high as that ofother district councils in the area, it was threatened with capping because the percentage increase was deemed too high.
	The Government must come clean and tell my constituents in Fenland, and indeed people in Oxfordshire, that what they really mean by an unreasonable burden is just the percentage increase, not the finite amount in the bill that people have to pay.
	However, because of the relatively low tax base, which is reflected by the number and the value of properties, council tax increases in Fenland have to be much higher than in neighbouring councils to raise the same amount of income. The gearing effect is much exaggerated. For example, in Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire, a 1 increase in council tax raises 56,000 and 55,000 respectively, whereas in Fenland it would raise only 28,000100 per cent. less. To put it another way, Fenland has to increase its council tax by double the rate of its neighbouring councils to raise the same amount of money. Is that really fair? Is that not the real burden for the council tax payers of Fenland?

Hugh Bayley: Surely the question is why Fenland council was having to raise its council tax so high in the first place, given that Government grant to Fenland was 4.8 per cent., which is twice the rate of inflation.

Malcolm Moss: I will explain the situation later.
	On accountability, we realise and accept that the difficulties with the low tax base are to some extent addressed by the local government grant formula with which the Government have now come forward and the number of properties at the lower end are taken into consideration. We also welcome the fact that under the new formula, the districts will receive extra money in lieu of what used to be called the area cost adjustment. This is the first time that the districts and the county of Cambridgeshire will enjoy this extra money from the new calculation and formula. But in the first year of the new grant, which was last year, the Government, under their floors and ceilings policy, held back some 566,000, and that is 8 per cent. of Fenland's budget. In fact, at that time last year the Government said that they capped the grant at a ceiling. Of course, they have dropped the word capped this year and replaced it with the phrase scaled back. Obviously, they could not cap their own grant distribution and at the same time wield the big stick and cap local councils. But in the current year, under scaling back as opposed to capping, the Government have withheld 422,000, which is 6 per cent. of Fenland's budget.
	Where is the logic behind a Government policy that on the one hand calculates the budget for the district council under the new formula while withholding some of the grant required to deliver that budget, but on the other threatens to cap the council when it proposes to raise sufficient funds from council tax to replace that withheld funding?
	The effect of scaling back grant is clear: if the Government had paid the grant that they calculated the council was entitled to and made no other changes, the council tax rise in Fenland would have been 8.17 per cent., which is less than the 8.25 per cent. threshold that the Government chose as the trigger point for capping.
	Who is accountable now? Is the council accountable for wanting to deliver the required services, or are the Government, who held back rightful grant, accountable? Why have the Government changed their mind on capping? In March last year, they indicated that they would not cap those councils categorised as excellent or good under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment system, but they are reneging on that pledge. Telford and Wrekin council is one of the councils in the list for capping, and it has an excellent grading under the CPA.
	As I said earlier, the Government are not only withholding grant but piling extra financial burdens and responsibilities on to councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney gave us a long but not exhaustive list of extra burdens that the Government have piled on to councils since they entered office. I accept that many of those extra pressures are supported by capital grants, but we all know that capital expenditure has a knock-on effect on the ongoing revenue expenditure required to keep services going, and that that money is provided from local resources and is not met by Government grant.
	Let us consider recycling targets, which have been mentioned more than once in this debate. Recycling is not currently mandatory, but the Government strongly recommend and encourage it. If one talks to district councils, none of them thinks that recycling will not be a Government statutory requirement in the near future. This year, Fenland district council put 204,000 into its budget to meet recycling targets, following Government guidelines and encouragement. A similar story can be told about the e-government targets, which are, again, non-funded targetsFenland district council put 125,000 into its budget to meet e-government targets. Added together, those two amounts meet the Government's required budget savings of 300,000 following capping. Are those examples of excessive budget requirements?
	Fenland district council has submitted a medium-term financial strategy that identified higher increases this year, reducing significantly in future years. Those increases are part of a short-term strategy, and do not indicate a continuing trend. Next year and in future years, the strategy, which was submitted to the Government, outlines efficiency savings of 350,000, and a reduction in the general fund reserves totalling 800,000 spread over the three years from 200405 to 200607, which will mitigate the increases on council tax payers.
	Finally, I come to the issue of re-billing. As a small district council, Fenland has particular problems this year. The current billing system will not allow for automatic re-billing, and the bill for software reprogramming for a new system will come to some 85,000. It is also important that a decision is taken quickly, if the Minister and his Department can do that, because if some council tax payers take the view that substantial savings are to come their way as a result of capping, they may not pay their council tax bills as early as they might have done.
	That withholding of payment can create havoc for a council's budgeting and financial position and the final cost according to the Local Government Association could be more than 200,000.
	If we take into account the lower estimate for the re-billing exercise, the saving for a band D taxpayer is calculated at only 7 for the year. After all that, we shall save a band D taxpayer 13p a week. For 85 per cent. of taxpayers in bands A, B and C, the amount will be less than 13p. We must ask the obvious question: is the whole exercise not rather pointless?
	If Fenland council can demonstrate planned lower increases in its medium-term strategy for the next few years and if it receives a good, if not excellent, category from the recent comprehensive performance assessment reviewthe outcome is due at the end of the monthsurely common sense will prevail and the threat of capping be lifted this year. After all, Fenland district council is not profligate. Its council tax is not an unreasonable burden compared with its immediate neighbours'. Its budget is not excessive; it is a well-run council, which actively and positively seeks to implement Government policies, namely recycling and e-government, and has a clear idea of where it is going, as the CPA review will doubtless bear out.
	I invite the Minister to bring the full weight of his acclaimed knowledge, common sense and understanding to bear to foster the correct and logical outcome.

Hugh Bayley: When the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rose to move the motion, the Liberal Democrat Benches were packed with Members desperately willing him to deliver the knockout blow in the local government election campaign. As his speech continued, they crept out of the Chamber one by one and now only two remain. Neither looks especially happy.
	Most hon. Members agree that the council tax needs reform, especially in Liberal Democrat areas where the biggest increases in council tax this year took place. Those increases are 6 per cent. on average, compared with 5.4 per cent. in Conservative-controlled councils and 4.7 per cent. in Labour areas. Although the increases are considerably lower than last year's, they have led to discontent among many people, especially the elderly. The pensioner council tax revolt started in the south-west of England, where there are many Liberal Democrat councils. However, it is not confined to Liberal Democrat areas; there is genuine anxiety among elderly people throughout the country.
	I applaud the Government for establishing the balance of funding review. It is an all-party review, which includes local politicians who are nominated by the Local Government Association and it will report this summer. If the Liberal Democrats genuinely wanted a considered improvement on the status quo, they would not try to pre-empt the review but await the proposals from that all-party review team. We therefore need to ask why the Liberal Democrats have jumped the gun with a muddled and costly local income tax proposal.
	The answer is simple: it diverts attention from the Liberal Democrats' record in local government throughout the country of poorly controlled spending and poor-quality services. Hon. Members have already mentioned the interesting fact that, of the councils that the Audit Commission independently judged to be excellent, some 12 are Labour controlled and none is Liberal Democrat controlled.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. When he was speaking, with all the benefits of a Front Bencher who can speak for more than 30 minutes, I asked four times whether I could intervene on him. He declined and now he wants to intervene when hardly any time remains for Back Benchers to speak and when a Liberal Democrat Back Bencher, miserable though he looks, hopes to be called next. So I shall decline to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene.
	Until this time last year, City of York had the lowest band D council tax in Yorkshire. Indeed, it had the lowest council tax in Yorkshire in each and every band. Then, a year ago, the Liberal Democrats won control of the council, and I applaud their electoral success. Now, one year later, we no longer have the lowest council tax in Yorkshire; we have the fourth lowest. The band D rate in York is 1,078 this year. In Bradford, it is 1,061; in Wakefield, it is 1,048; and in Leeds, it is 1,040. York has gone from lowest to fourth lowest in just a year.
	Last year, when the Liberal Democrats took control, they promised in York, as elsewhere, that they could deliver a 100 a year reduction in council tax. What actually happened this year was an average increase of about 80 a year. The plan for a 100 cut in council tax has been quietly shelved and replaced by another completely uncostedand, frankly, equally undeliverablepromise on local income tax.
	The Liberal Democrats cannot blame the Government for this increase. The Government increased the grant for City of York council by 5.5 per cent. this year, which is twice the rate of inflation. The provisional settlement gave us a 4.3 per cent. increasea Government grant of more than 100 million for the first time. I went into battle for the City of York, and I will support the council tax payers in my constituency irrespective of which party controls the council. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government listened to what was being said, saw what was happening on the ground and increased the Government's support for the City of York by a further 1.2 million, taking the overall increase in Government grant to 5.5 per cent. So the 8.5 per cent. increase in council tax imposed by the Liberal Democrat council in York has not come about because of a poor funding settlement from central Government. It has come about because of a failure of the Liberal Democrat administration in York to control its own soar-away spending.
	So, although York still has one of the lowest council taxes in the country, thanks to a legacy of prudent financial management by a Labour council for a good many years, it came within a hair's breadth of being capped this year. The limit set by my right hon. Friend the Minister was an 8.5 per cent. increase in council tax or a 6.5 per cent. increase in the overall council budget. By luck rather than judgment, City of York came in with a council tax increase of exactly 8.5 per cent., and a budget increase of exactly 6.5 per cent. So, had it come in with a council tax increase that was any higher, and had there been just one more council in England to be capped, it would have been the City of York. That is a remarkable turnaround in its financial fortunes in just one year, and it ought to be a stark warning to the Liberal Democrats in control of the council that they have to get their soar-away spending under control before next year.
	The Liberal Democrat income tax proposal is a magician's sleight of hand, because it seeks to move attention from the real world of high-cost Liberal Democrat councils to a fantasy world in which everybody is led to believe that somebody else will pay their council tax bill. Who will pay? Hon. Members should not look at the Liberal Democrats' costings, because, like the 100 cash-back offer last year, they will vanish overnight. Instead, they should look at CIPFA's analysis, which was prepared for the cross-party balance of funding review.
	CIPFA estimates that the Liberal Democrat income tax proposal, which will vary from council to council because it is local, would raise the basic rate from between 3.2p to 6.5p in the pound. That proposal will hit many people on low incomes in places such as York who do not pay council tax at the moment, while excluding some people on high incomes who pay council tax.
	Yorkshire has on average the lowest council tax in England, but it does not have the lowest average incomes, so the Liberal Democrat plans for a local income tax would mean higher bills for working families in Yorkshire. What about people with second homes in York, Harrogate, the Yorkshire dales, or the North York moors? They will not have to pay a penny under the Liberal Democrat local income tax proposals. What about millionaires, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said, are not on PAYE and live off investment income? They will not be touched by the Liberal Democrats' proposals.
	I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the balance of funding review, but tonight I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that, at this stage at least, the Government do not intend to increase income tax for hard-working families while at the same time letting off some better-off households from paying local taxes altogether. That is precisely what the Liberal Democrat motion proposes.

Adrian Sanders: Over the years, each Minister who has spoken on local government has presented to the House the claim that their local government settlement is the best ever. Of course, it always is, because with inflation that will always be so, but Government inflation is based on retail price inflation, not the inflation rate that councils across the country have to meet.
	According to a survey by Barclays bank, the public sector inflation rate in the past 12 months was some 7 per cent. If the average council received an increase of 5.5 per cent., every council received a real-terms decrease in central Government funding. The claim that such and such a council got well above the retail price inflation rate is trueit is not a liebut it is never the whole story. It misleads and confuses the public over whether the Chancellor should get a pat on the back for his Budget, or whether councillors should get it in the neck for the high council tax.
	The council tax has three failings. I shall speak from the point of view of my constituency in particular. Labour Membersthe hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), for example, cannot see that under local income tax the people of Wigan would pay less in tax than they pay under council taxare misunderstanding local income tax, or are happy for their constituents to pay more.

Neil Turner: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is short of time, but I have to point out that well over 90 per cent. of households in Wigan are in bands A and B, and that is why they would pay more in income tax than in council tax.

Adrian Sanders: The hon. Gentleman has read the tax base figures, but he is incorrect. People in Wigan would pay far less under local income tax, given local incomes.
	There are three fundamental flaws in the council tax. First, the grant system is based on historic spend. An authority such as mine, once part of a large shire county with historically low spending patterns, never catches up.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman says that the council tax is fundamentally flawed. Why, then, are the Liberal Democrats not getting rid of it in Scotland?

Adrian Sanders: We would like to, if we were in government in Scotland, but we are not. We believe in devolution and different solutions fought for by different people.
	Historic spending patterns mean that our grant is kept low and that we never catch up. Secondly, the grant formula is linked to the tax base. If an area has a high base, it gets less money in central Government grant. The third flaw lies in demand for services. In an area such as mine, where there is historic low spending, high house prices and low incomes, and simultaneously there is ever-rising demand for services, as is often the case in seaside resorts because of demographic changes as economically inactive people migrate there and elderly people remain alive longer, demand for services rises faster than the grant formula can keep up with.
	There is a further problem, too. Out of the chunk of central Government money that goes to local government, increasing amounts have been top-sliced for a few local authorities that have been able successfully to bid for them. In a sense, the year-on-year increase of that which is available to all councils goes up, but for those that cannot access that top-sliced funding, the amount does not go up by anything like as much as the Government would claim.
	I received figures from the local government Minister following a written question last week that show the impact of that. In my constituency, residents are worth 26 per head less than those in the average unitary authority; I compare like with like because it is unfair to compare unitary authority figures with those for other tiers of local government. For a council that is successful in getting access to top-sliced funding, the ratio is even bigger. Our nearest successful neighbour is Plymouth, where residents get 101 per head more than the residents in my council area. If my local authority got the same per head Government grant funding as Plymouth, we could have cut council tax by a quarter this year without cutting services.
	Let me put straight something referred to earlier that needs to be corrected. There are toilet closures in my constituency, but we are gearing up for a bumper summer season and our lifeblood is tourism. I am not aware of any beach or tourist area that will be without a public convenience. The closures have been carefully chosen, and some of those closed will reopen as a result of a local initiative. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whose constituency covers part of Torbay, which is a tourist resort, must be corrected. No tourist should be put off as a consequence of his misinformation.

Bob Russell: He was talking down Torbay.

Adrian Sanders: That is right.
	There is a perverse capping logic. Our council tax in the past two or three years has been lower than those of our neighbours in Devon and Plymouth, and our council tax is the second lowest in Devon. Why, then, are the neighbouring authorities not capped? Simply, the answer is that the increase has come this year, and this year brings important elections for the Labour party in metropolitan areas. Capping will therefore fall on my constituents because of Labour's electoral chances.
	I must finish now to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to wind up, but I have one final question for the Minister. He attacked a local income tax on the grounds that many people could evade it. If it is such a big problem, what are the Government doing about all those income tax evaders who fail to make a contribution?

Matthew Green: This debate has shown the House at its worst. The public always say that there is too much yah-boo in the conduct of our business. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) stood up today, he had a well written speech

David Taylor: Why didn't he use it?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is still at it. My hon. Friend had a well written contribution to make to the debate on local government finance, but the representatives of the Labour and Conservative parties clearly had no intention of debating local government finance. They just wanted to play yah-boo politics. However, I will try to answer some of the questions that have emerged from the debate.
	The Minister claimed that the Government were reducing ring-fencing. We could achieve a cross-party consensus on that, but the Minister must accept that passporting is ring-fencing in all but name. As long as the Government passport education, which is more than 50 per cent. of local government finance, the funds are dictated by central Government. It does not matter whether it is called passporting or ring-fencing: it is the same thing. The change of word does not let the Minister off the hook. If the Minister promised to tackle passporting, we would be happy, but I suspect that he would then invent another word for it and claim that he had dealt with the first two problems.
	The Minister said that the Liberal Democrats should tell our councils to get a grip and lower their council taxes. That comes from a Labour party that has a policy of new localism. I understood that new localism meant giving extra powers to councils and letting them decide issues for themselves. The Liberal Democrats believe that councils should be left to take their own decisions and to face the electorate on that basis, but this Labour Government think that such matters should be decided by central diktat. The Minister cannot have it both ways: he must choose between new localism and capping.
	The Minister mentioned capping and I shall give a local example. West Mercia police have been nominated for capping for next year. That authority has had some large council tax rises recently, including 33 per cent. a few years ago. However, I have not had a single letter of complaint about that rise, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who is no longer in his place, would say the same. That is because the authority was waiting for extra money from central Government, which never came, so in order to deploy 200 extra officers the police authority

Paul Marsden: My hon. Friend is right, but I had thousands of letters about soaring council tax increaseseven though the Government said in 1997 that they would make the council tax fairer. People are happy with the increase in the council tax precept by West Mercia police authority that will supply 15 extra bobbies on the beat, because the authority is accountable and people feel that they have more control over that decision.

Matthew Green: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have capped an authority that the public support because it has increased the number of officers. The Government are getting it wrong and they should withdraw the proposals to cap that authority.
	The Minister would not read out the four advantages of local income tax that were identified by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. He clearly has not read the document in detail, as he did not know that it mentioned five, not six, disadvantages. I want to pick up on the first of those advantages, because a lot has been said about the balance of funding. CIPFA says that one of the main advantages of LIT would be that it is
	capable of effecting a real shift in the balance of funding.

Neil Turner: How?

Matthew Green: Because once it is in place, one can, over successive years, reduce national income tax and shift it on to local income tax. That shift in the balance of funding could be effected in other ways. For example, the shadow Chancellor proposed in a speech in February that the proportion that is raised locally should rise and that the amount coming through central Government grant should be cut. However, he also said that council tax is the vehicle to do it. That would effectively mean that were one to, say, double the amount raised locally, council tax would double. One might cut national income tax, but one would double council tax. However one looks at it, shifting the balance of funding means reducing national tax and increasing local tax. The easiest way of doing that is through local income tax, as CIPFA says.
	I am short of time, but I do not want to miss the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to his post. Speaking for the Conservatives on local government finance is a bit like being handed a hospital pass. If the hon. Gentleman has ever played rugby, he will know what I am talking about. We would love to be able to debate the issue across all three parties, but the difficulty is that the Conservatives have no policy at the moment.
	We know that the Government are thinking about, and consulting on, a new policy. However, I have here the Labour party's local government supplementary manifesto to its 1997 general election manifesto. [Hon. Members: Yah-boo!] It is not yah-booit is a serious point. The manifesto said:
	Labour proposes to return the business rate to local control as part of our commitment to improved partnership with local business. We are consulting widely on our plans to ensure that any changes bring maximum benefit to local businesses.
	We share the aim of restoring business rates to local control, but I hope that the first question that the Under-Secretary addresses is this: what was the response to that consultation, and why are the Government still consulting seven years later?
	The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) asked about millionaires and why we would cap the tax at 100,000. I am not sure how many millionaires' houses he has seen, but at the moment even if they live in the biggest of houses they pay only three times what is paid by the occupants of the smallest of housesthat is, about twice the amount of band D. The highest amount that a millionaire anywhere in the country pays is about 2,500. Under our proposals, they would pay quite a bit more.

Dave Watts: Not enough.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not enough, but what do his Government propose to do to make millionaires pay more? If they had any such proposals, we would welcome them.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned excellent authorities, but I am afraid that his Whips' briefing missed one outCambridge is an excellent authority with majority Liberal Democrat control.

Hugh Bayley: rose

Matthew Green: I cannot give way, because I have only a minute left.
	The hon. Gentlemanthis is the most telling pointdescribed the idea of local income tax as being for people living in a fantasy world. Clearly, then, people in the United States, Japan and most of Europe live in a fantasy world, because that is where local income tax is used and works. The fact is that local income tax is a fair solution, whereas council tax is an iniquitous tax that hits the poorest and pensioners hardest. The Government should agree with us about scrapping that unfair Tory tax instead of trying to defend the status quo.

Phil Hope: We have had a short debate led by the Liberal Democrats. If they were intending to use it to try to boost their chances in the forthcoming local elections, it was an utter failure. We have yet to see a more lamentable performance in the House.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Although we are never quite sure who is who on the Tory Front Bench, it is good to see him there. His performance was good on style but somewhat lacking in substanceI shall come to that in a moment.
	As we are debating local government finance, I remind the House about Labour's record over the last seven years: a real-terms grant increase of 30 per cent. and the longest period of sustained investment in local government in recent decades. This year the grant increase for local councils was 5.5 per cent. Furthermore, we have removed some of the ring-fencing, and that process will continue.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded the House, Labour councils have the lowest council tax increases this year: the figure is 4.7 per cent. for Labour councils and 5.4 per cent for Tory councils, but Liberal Democrat councils are top of the shop with council tax increases of 6 per cent. I am also pleased to say that Labour councils are doing well in their comprehensive performance assessments.
	The missing Liberal Democrat 100 has been mentioned but Members have neglected to mention the extra Labour 100. This year, there is a one-off payment of 100 for pensioners aged over 70 to help them with their council tax costs.
	I turn to the substance of the debatethe Liberal Democrat motion. There has been a noticeable absence of Liberal Democrat Members in the debate, although one or two are coming into the Chamber at this late stage. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) gave an eloquent and devastating exposure of what it is like when Liberal Democrats are in control of local authorities. They lose control of their budgets and find that they are at riska clear message to every elector that if they want sensible budgeting and good-quality services they should support Labour councils.
	We have heard that the Liberal Democrats propose to sweep away all council taxto abolish property taxes entirely and replace them with a local income tax under their popular slogan, Axe the Tax. Of course, when they say Axe the Tax, they forget to say, Oh, by the way we'll have to put up another tax to pay for it: only a minor point of detail. We would not want to remind them too much about that but for the fact that it will mean between 3 and 6 per cent. on income tax. So, Axe the tax (oh, and we'll put up your income tax) might be a rather more accurate description of Liberal Democrat policy.
	Moreover, the Liberal Democrats are not actually going to axe the tax. What do they plan to do about second homes? Second homes will still be subject to a form of property tax. There will continue to be a business levy, or rate, on every second home in the country, which means we shall have to count all those second homes, value them and then tax them. That sounds to me like a property tax, which they have just pledged, under Axe the Tax, to sweep away. Not only will the Liberal Democrats maintain a property tax, they will also increase income tax. We shall get a double whammy from the Liberal Democrats.
	By introducing a local income tax, the Liberal Democrats will attack people such as students. As most Members know, students or nurses in training do not pay council tax. However, a nurse in training who earned some money at weekends or during the holidays and started to pay income tax would be caught by the local income tax, so a new set of people would have to pay local income tax.
	The Liberal Democrat sums do not add upwe had that debate in February. They said that they would pay for all their proposals through an increase on the higher rate of council tax that will generate 4.7 billion. They would spend about 6.2 billion in local tax and 1.7 billion on raising the income tax threshold to 5,000 and they would spend on higher education and on care for the elderly. We have costed a list of Liberal Democrat promises and it comes to 6.2 billion, yet they will raise only 4.7 billion.
	That seems to be a bit of a gap. It is only 1.5 billion, but that is the Liberal Democrats' finances. Perhaps they might like to spend time at a numeracy summer school to try to get it right in future.
	The Liberal Democrats' other great slogan is, Scrap the cap. That sounds a great idea; we will not put a cap on. What happened to the Liberals' concern for pensioners on low incomes? Scrap the cap, but what do we see? They would allow local councils to put council taxes through the roof. That is why we have introduced capping to bring down council taxes this year. It is important to protect pensioners on low incomes.
	We then come to the great cheque that bouncedthe 100 that came and went. Now you see it; now you don't. It is another bit of Liberal Democrat magic for the House. They are not so much pulling a rabbit out of a hat as trying to stuff it rapidly back in as they realise that they cannot afford to pay for it. The Lib Dem agenda is higher income tax, more bureaucracy, sums that do not add up and a U-turn. That is just about right for the Liberal Democrats.
	I would not want this Liberal Democrat-led debate to divert attention entirely from the Conservatives and their proposals for local government. It is interesting that their amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion says absolutely nothing about their proposals for the future of local government funding. So I thought that I would remind the House of one or two proposals that we know are now in the public domain.
	The first thing is that the Conservatives will not repeat their poll tax disaster; for that, we can be thankful. However, they made a record 7 per cent. cut in local government funding in the last four years of the Tory Government. Have they learned that that was probably not a good idea? No, because they have a shadow Cabinet that represents a recession in waiting. For the first two years, if they got back into office, they would cut spending on local councils by no less than 2 billion. That is not just cuts, but hacking off whole services at a local level.
	We have heard some excellent contributions in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) spoke, and the budget of his council in Wigan would be cut by no less than 13 million in the first two years of a Tory Government. The budget of the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York would be cut by 5 million if the Tories got back in. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) talked about the capping of Fenland. If his party got back in power, the first thing he would be doing is explaining to his councillors why it was going to cut 350,000 from Fenland's budget. That is the impact of Conservative policies.
	There would not just be cuts for everyone and cuts across the board. The Conservatives would remove resource equalisation, which involves spending more for those who need it most. The sum total of Tory policy is not only cuts for everybody, but cuts for those councils in the areas with the most vulnerable people who need the resources and services the most.
	I might add that the Tories have promised that they would scrap the comprehensive performance assessment and the best value measures. I was trying to work out why that should be. Is it because they want to deny a good management tool for local government? No. Is it because they want to stop local citizens having information to make judgments? No. I shall tell the House what it is about. When they put their cuts in place, they do not want us to know about it. They do not want the citizens to know about it. It is a cover-up for the cuts that the Tories would introduce. We can sum up the Tories' agendacuts and cover-up. That is the Conservative way.
	Let me draw to a conclusion on where we are going next. We have seen that the Liberal Democrats' proposals involve higher taxes, more muddle, more bureaucracy and reneging on their promises. From the Conservatives, we have seen that, if they got back into power, there would be cut upon cut, with services and councils finding themselves unable to deal with that.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire complained about capping, but his views were in direct contradiction to those expressed by those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have said that they would support capping and keep capping reserve powers if they needed them. He should ensure that his local councillors understand the difference between his position and that of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
	Where are we now? We have a Labour Government who are investing in local services and investing 30 per cent. more in local government than the other parties. We are in a position of lower council tax increases

Andrew Stunell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 437.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 181.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government support for local government with its 30 per cent. real terms increase in grant since 1997; notes that the average increase in council tax in 200405 is the lowest for nine years; supports the Government's proposals to take action against a number of authorities which have set excessive budgets and council tax increases in 200405; and looks forward to the report of the Balance of Funding Review of how local government in England is funded which is due in summer 2004.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Human Rights

That the draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1164), dated 20th April, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the direction given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 28th April 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Co-operation with the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

That this House takes note of European Union Document No.12441/03, draft regulation amending Council Regulation (EC)No.1734/94 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories; welcomes this amendment; and supports the European Commission's continued support for Palestinian development and the Middle East Peace Process.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, for the purposes of its approval, the draft Guidance proposed to be issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd March, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).[Gillian Merron.]

BUS RE-REGULATION (MANCHESTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Gillian Merron.]

Graham Stringer: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the catastrophic effects of the deregulation of buses in 1986 and the potential for re-regulating the bus system in Manchester and other metropolitan and county areas.
	This is not a dry academic subject based on economic theory or the history of transport legislation; it is a real story of people in my constituency whose lives have been and are being damaged because of the ineffectiveness of the bus system. I could spend the time allotted to me for this Adjournment debate just going through my casework. There are hundreds of cases of people who are upset and complain that, because the 149 does not turn up, they have missed hospital appointments, or because the 151 service is withdrawn they have difficulty getting to work.
	In parts of my constituency, fewer than a third of people have access to a car and therefore are particularly dependent on buses and vulnerable when those buses do not turn up. It is a little known fact that outside London, Manchester, at 22 per cent., has the highest percentage of people using buses. It is well known that one of the largest factors keeping unemployed people from employment is their lack of access to transport. It is estimated from surveys that 40 per cent. of people give that as a reason for not getting a job. Therefore, failures in the bus system have a terrific economic impact and a terrific impact on those who want to use North Manchester general hospital.
	A particular problem in my constituency in north Manchester has been the extremely poor performance of First group in providing services. Some 12 months ago, in one week in particular, it had 600 failures, which meant that the bus did not turn up. That means that if only 10 people wanted to use each service, 6,000 people that week were stranded or had to wait for the next service. When the passenger transport authority considered its reliability performances, it was found that on its 10-minute services a third were not making the scheduled time, and on its 15-minute services 20 per cent. were not running to schedule.
	On point-to-point fares, First group has higher fares on every rate and distance compared with Stagecoach in the south of Manchester. Its weekly ticket is more expensive, although some saver tickets are better than those of other bus companies operating in the area. But overall, its performance on reliability, punctuality and fares is appalling, and that is still the case. More recently, it has averaged 300 failures a week, so there was not just a peak 12 months ago. The service has been consistently bad.
	First group's appalling performance created a crisis before Christmasit has given a number of reasons to explain why that happened. It claimed that it did not have enough drivers; but when it recruited drivers, it did not have the engineers to start the buses, so the problem did not involve drivers because the buses simply were not there.
	When the Transport Act 1985 went through this House, it was not envisaged that that would happen because competition was supposed to ensure that an ineffective, badly operated company, which First group is in north Manchester, could not succeed. Other bus companies should have come in, provided a better service and competed on fares, the market should have worked well and the passengers should have been happy.
	That has not happened because the people who framed the 1985 Act got it wrong. Nationally, 85 per cent. of the market has been consolidated by five companies, and that situation has been replicated in Greater Manchester. In the north and west of the city, First group run between 80 and 85 per cent. of services, and Stagecoach has a similar dominance of the market in the south of the city. Although about 40 bus companies operate in Greater Manchester, two of them dominate the market. That is a cartela monopoly situationand it was not supposed to happen under the 1985 Act. I am happy to call the situation a cartel, because if it has got a black, cold nose, it wags its tail and it barks, then it is a dog. The two major operators in Manchester engage in little competition and they form a cartel that disadvantages the travelling public.
	What are the remedies? The 1985 Act did not work in the way in which it was envisaged. I have written to the Office of Fair Trading on a number of occasions, and it always asks, Where is your evidence that there is anti-competitive behaviour? Where is your evidence that meetings have taken place between Stagecoach and First group to arrange those anti-competitive practices? I do not have such evidence. The evidence is that services are poor and that competition is lacking. The OFT says, The market should take care of that.
	The Transport Committee has seen that the OFT does not have a high regard for evidence because the OFT relies on dogma and theory. When it argued the case for deregulated hackney carriages, we took evidence in the Transport Committee showing that where taxis are deregulated, against theoretical expectations fares increase beyond the average and waiting times increase. It simply ignored that evidence and said that competition would drive down fares and waiting times, which has not happened in practice, and it views bus services in a similar way.
	I do not know whether you have seen Planet of the Apes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The OFT reminds me of the apes who were in charge of the planet and who believed that flight was impossible. When the human beings, who had travelled forward in time, made a paper aeroplane, the apes simply did not believe that it flew. That is how the OFT operates. For an integrated, effective transport system, we need integrated routes so that the timetables meet and people can change from one bus to another. The OFT says that that is anti-competitive and it tries to stop the co-ordination of services. It has failed within the bus industry, and it has no role in examining buses.
	Let us consider the traffic commissioner, with whom I believe the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority is in communication. If it was effective in persuading her of the unreliability and lack of punctuality of First group, what are her remedies? They are to fine the company or tell it to remove the service. Removing the service would not be helpful to the people whom I represent when other groups prefer not to operate those routes. First group sometimes tells me that that is because its computer systems try to reduce the dead mileage between the destination and the garages. If that means that it stays on the same routes and does not compete much with Stagecoach and other operators, that is another method of getting computers to arrange an anti-competitive contract for the company.
	What remedies exist in the Transport Act 2000? Can we have a quality contract that would enable the specification of service levels and fares and ensure that competition occurred at the tendering stage, with the public sector controlling the routes? I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary is consulting on reducing the 21-month rule for introducing a quality contract when the scheme has been agreed. However, I do not believe that there is much hope that Greater Manchester or anywhere else can go down the quality contracts route because the hurdle in section 124 of having to prove that a quality contract is the only practicable way of implementing the authority's policies is simply too high.
	In Coventry, which tried to introduce a quality contract, Arriva flooded the area with buses and claimed that there was no need. It might take three and a half or four and a half years to implement a quality contract. If the bus operators do not want it, they can change what they are doing to prevent the PTA from surmounting the legislative hurdle.
	What is happening in Manchester and Greater Manchester? Since deregulation in 1986, a drop in passengers of between 30 and 40 per cent. has occurred in all metropolitan areas, including Greater Manchester. There is potentially good news in the bare statistics, which show that, during the past three or four years, the number of people who use buses in Manchester has increased by 6 per cent. However, when we look into that, we find that it has made the position worse because the major operators, not only in Greater Manchester but in other metropolitan areas, are consolidating their services on the main routes, where they pick up more passengers, but withdrawing from the non-radial and cross-conurbation routes and from marginal areas. That leads to social isolation and makes using buses more difficult.
	Companies are also withdrawing services from the weekends and times outside the rush hour. They put more and more buses on the radial routes and during the morning and evening rush hours. People who want to travel at other times are finding it difficult to do so. That led the National Audit Office, in its recent report on trams, to point out that it is not a sensible use of public money to have private sector operators competing against a light railway system. The Government have put moneyI hope that they will put some moreinto the tram system in Greater Manchester.
	When bus companies consolidate on the radial routes, it means that, if the PTA wants to keep the routes going, it must put the route up for tender. The costs to the PTA in Greater Manchester have more than doubled to 13 million. There is little competition and the bus companies that previously ran the routes tender for them, usually at a considerably higher cost. That is the experience throughout the country.
	We find the public sector supporting the buses through concessionary fares in increasing amountsit is between 55 million to 60 million in Greater Manchester. Also, it is not widely recognised that, as the buses travel backwards and forwards more on the radial routes, they are doing more miles, even though they are going to fewer places. Even when passenger numbers were decreasing, the buses were making that first consolidation and doing more miles, which means that they get more bus service operator grant.
	More money is going into concessionary fares60 million in the case of Greater Manchestervia supported tendered services, and the bus service operator grant is going up as mileage goes up, yet we are getting a worse service. In fact, public money is being used to isolate communities and make the public transport system worse. I do not find it tolerable that public money should be used in that way. It is a fact that throughout the metropolitan areas, 30 to 40 per cent. of the bus services' income comes from the public purse, but the passenger transport authorities and county councils have no control over how that money is used. The travelling public find that very difficult to understand.
	I believe that bus services should be re-regulated, but they are opposed to that idea. That is not surprising. The one area that was not deregulated in 1986 was London. There, the bus companies get 8 per cent. of their income from the public purse, whereas those in the metropolitan areas get considerably more than that. Over the period since deregulation, and with very low subsidies, there has not been the loss of passengers in Greater London that there has been in the metropolitan areas, and with more money going into the system, we are now seeing huge increases in the number of passengers using buses in Greater London. The Government have to answer this question: why, if a regulated scheme is good enough for London, is it not good enough for the rest of the country? It is better for the travelling public and for the public purse, people know what they are getting for their money, and the system is transparent.
	I should like to finish by citing my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was asked on at least two occasions when he came before the Select Committee whether it was possible to have an integrated transport system without re-regulating the buses. He was clear and unambiguous in his response, which was that that was impossible, because it is not possible to co-ordinate the services to the benefit of the travelling public. I agree with him that that is the case.
	I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments and consider re-regulating the buses, whether through a pilot scheme or in some other way, because the pathway to a more sensible use of public money and to a more effective transport systemnot just in Manchester but throughout the countryis through a different system from the one that we have. At the moment, the bus companies are laughing all the way to the bank. They are taking more and more money from the Exchequer and providing a service that is less and less good for the travelling public. That is leading to social exclusion and keeping people from jobs and from access to health and education services.
	I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up and say, Yes, we will do that tomorrow, but I hope that he and the Government realise the power of the arguments that have been put tonight and that the current situation is not a sensible way of providing a transport system or of using public money.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) on securing this debate, on his contribution to the discussion on bus regulation and on recognising the importance of buses to Manchester. I can cheerfully say that I shall not disappoint him, as I am not going to say, Yes, you can have all you want. The significance of this debate lies in a recognitionmuch overdue in many areas of the debate on transportof the importance of buses.
	Buses provide two thirds of all public transport journeys, and they are key to making public transport a viable alternative to the car. As my hon. Friend suggests, they also play a vital role in tackling congestion and, crucially, promoting access and inclusion. I welcome this opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to make buses central to our integrated transport strategy.
	My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that buses can deliver and are beginning to do so. We have set the target of securing a 12 per cent. increase in the use of local public transportbuses and light railby 2010, while improving the accessibility, punctuality and reliability of services. The latest figures for England show a 3 per cent. overall increase last year, including London. Despite my hon. Friend's caveats, Greater Manchester has contributed to that, with bus patronage up 6 per cent. since 19992000. I congratulate both cities on that.
	To dwell on the wider context for a moment, progress is already being made on fleet modernisation. The average age of the bus fleet has fallen from 9.6 to 8.1 years over the past 10 years and some 30 per cent. of full-sized buses are accessible for wheelchairs. As my hon. Friend will know, there have been significant advances in CCTV and other dimensions, not least real-time information equipment.
	Of course, to achieve patronage growth and service improvement, a number of key factors have to be brought together: investment in traffic management, quality, partnership and the appropriate regulatory framework all have a role to play, as indeed does strong political leadership.
	My hon. Friend has made the case for re-regulation, and I listened to his arguments carefully. I know others share his view. I certainly agree that it is essential that a city such as Manchester has high-quality bus services as part of a modern, integrated transport system. We are keen to help to create the conditions to make that happen, but we need to look closely at how best to go about it.
	The fully tendered system, which my hon. Friend referred to and which operates in London, has produced impressive increases in bus patronage. Ken Livingstone has shown that buses can deliver a quality service and help to tackle congestion when combined with traffic restraint. I welcome that progress, but London is unique in its size and complexity, and it has one of the largest and most comprehensive urban transport systems in the world. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend will know, London was at a different starting point in terms of regulation. We have to think carefully before assuming that replicating the London arrangements is a necessary or sufficient condition for delivering better bus services elsewhere. It is important to recognise both that the existing regulatory framework has strengths and that that system has not been tested to the extremes or as much as could have been the case. The existing regulatory framework has the scope to encourage innovationresponding to customer needs, providing choice and attracting new custom. Many operators have risen to the challenge; indeed, Stagecoach Manchester won an award for its Unirider summer online ticket scheme at the 2003 bus industry awards.
	Our experience is that the effectiveness of bus services depends on the level of partnership between local authorities and bus operators. Partnership has shown that it can deliver in some places, and we are keen to build on that. The Bus Partnership Forum has been helping to take this forward by producing many useful resources and sharing best practice.
	Where that is not happening, the existing legislation makes provision for strengthening the hand of local transport authorities. The Transport Act 2000 offers a number of avenues for local authorities to pursue if appropriate. As my hon. Friend said, those include statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts. The latter allow authorities to plan and control bus services within a designated area. That can include fares, routes, timetables and driver training.
	The legislative framework is already in place. The task is to make it work. We are keen to remove barriers to the introduction of a quality contract where the criteria set down in the 2000 Act can be met, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words on the consultation to reduce significantly the 21-month statutory minimum waiting period before implementation of a scheme. We are analysing the results of that consultation, and we will shortly publish for consultation guidance on applying for a quality contract. That is important, not least because metropolitan and other areas have suggested that the 21-month period has been an impediment to the regulatory framework, and we are happy to consider that.
	My hon. Friend kindly made much of the amount of money going into bus services in Manchester and elsewhere, in both revenue and capital terms. That is an important part of the mix of factors that have to be brought to bear. In December, we announced a 1.9 billion capital settlement for local transportan increase of more than 200 million on the previous year, much of which is for bus-related projects. Indeed, we have approved 26.3 million for the Greater Manchester quality bus network.
	I certainly take to heart my hon. Friend's points about social inclusion. More funding is being provided for urban and rural bus challenges. Greater Manchester was notably successful in the 2003 awards, securing 2 million for six new schemes, among them precisely the sort of schemes that fill the social inclusion gap to which my hon. Friend referred. It is not the fault of people living in communities on a particular side of our great towns and cities if, for whatever historical reason, the key employment activity on that side of town has diminished or entirely gone so that most economic activity is on the other side of town. We are working closely with operators and local authorities to fill those gaps where restoring a fully fledged route would not be appropriate.
	I totally agree that it is vital that we get the best use out of the public funding that goes into buses in terms of achieving our objectives. We have been looking at that in the bus subsidy review and the current spending review, the outcomes of which are due this summer. I urge just a little patience on my hon. Friend in that regard, but it is right and proper given the amount of money going in from a range of sources, including bus service operator grant and the challenge funds, that we should look to see whether we are getting entirely the service and return that we need for that investment.
	I entirely agree that reliability is crucial. I am aware of the service delivery issues raised by my hon. Friend with First in northern Manchester. As he said, some of the problems have been caused by staff shortages and others by the absence of vehicles. The traffic commissioners have a vital enforcement role, and they are currently working with the bus partnership forum on gleaning better data about bus performance. I hope that Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and First can work together to ensure that users experience better service levels in problem areas.
	Reliability also depends on local traffic conditions and traffic management issues such as congestion. We are encouraging local authorities to implement bus priorities to help tackle that. My hon. Friend will know that there is at best a mixed picture nationwide on that, and I believe that keenly focused operators, sharp political leadership and such things as bus priority measures are equally important to securing the service that we need. In addition, the Traffic Management Bill currently going through its parliamentary stages contains provision to encourage the smooth flow of traffic in local areas and reduce disruption caused by street works.
	In recent months, we have had discussions with the Greater Manchester authorities, and others around England, about the focus of their next local transport plans. I am heartened by the amount of common ground that we have found. Greater Manchester has made huge strides in recent yearsnot only in patronage, although I take on board what my hon. Friend said about that. The new night bus has been very successful and trials of yellow buses are showing that they can improve safety and cut congestion.
	The Government's vision is of an integrated system that encourages the use of public transport as well as offering choice. Buses are essential in that regard, but we need the right framework of regulation. We are looking in the round at public subsidy for buses.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his contribution, and I wish him well in his desire to see buses playing a greater, more efficient role in Manchester as they fulfil their role in the integrated transport system that Manchester and all our urban and rural areas deserve. Whatever discussions we have about the regulatory framework, it is absolutely clear to the Government that buses are central to all that we are trying to do, not just on public transport and integrated transport, but in terms of exclusion
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.